House of Representatives
21 February 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1980

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 191

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 Fife, Mr Jull, Mr Martyr and Mr Shipton.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

Their support for and endorsement of the National Women’s Advisory Council. We call on the government to continue to maintain the National Women’s Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly, Mr Charles Jones and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Unemployment

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, 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 Cohen.

Petition 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 Fawn-mac group of drug companies would be contrary to the Nation’s interests. Fawn-mac still makes a profit of about half the proposed sale price in a year and cost 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 Fawn-mac group of companies.

And your petitioners as 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.

Sheltered Workshop Invalid Pensioners

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 per week income allowed in a sheltered workshop to $40 per week, before that income begins to reduce pension benefits; and then tie the $40 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 per week income allowed in a sheltered workshop to $40 per week, before that income begins to reduce pension benefits; and then tie the $40 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.

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 pan 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 Shipton.

Petition 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 substantially 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 PJT 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. b) that the windfall profit that Esso/B.H.P. is enjoying as a result of the increase in price of LPG be directed to Australian consumers rather than the Federal Treasury through excise, thus providing an additional decrease in the present price.

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

Petition 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 N.S.W. 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 schools 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 1980 to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly, Mr Charles Jones and Mr Uren.

Petitions received.

page 193

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 193

QUESTION

SALES TAX ON MOTOR CARS

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Industry and Commerce received a request from the South Australian Liberal Minister for Labour and Industry for a reduction in sales tax to boost the ailing car industry? Has he noted the views of the Liberal Federal member for Kingston and the Chrysler organisation bosses that this would be contrary to the interests of the industry? What is his policy? Will the Minister and his Government end the economic stagnation policies and curb the petrol tax increases which are having a devastating effect on both the demand for motor cars and employment in this vital industry?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– Let me say in clear and unequivocal terms that the Government certainly is not considering any change in the sales tax applicable to motor vehicles. The present situation, as the honourable gentleman would be aware, is characterised by a softening in the market, high stocks and downward adjustments in production schedules and employment. That position was not unexpected. Indeed, honourable members will recall my responding to a question posed by the honourable member for Corio in the latter period of the last session when I mentioned that the very buoyant conditions which had obtained between May and August of that year were in fact unlikely to continue. This industry is, of course, traditionally characterised by peaks and troughs. On this occasion a range of factors have been operating to depress new car sales in Australia. The continuing shift of consumer preference towards smaller cars, the general energy position, international uncertainties and the recent recall of vehicles all appear to have contributed to the present position of the market. Apart from that, the flowon effects in the used car market have in turn adversely affected new car sales.

The Government’s policy for the industry is directed at improving the internal and international competitiveness of Australian passenger motor vehicles, so enhancing the industry’s longer term viability and capacity to provide secure employment opportunities. The Government’s decision specifically to introduce export complementation measures into the motor vehicle manufacturing plan is a significant move in this direction. In the early 1980s the measures will operate to assist the industry in weathering short term fluctuations in the Australian market with less effect on employment. Responding to the general thrust of what the honourable gentleman has put forward, I do not believe that short term Government assistance specifically tailored to meet the vehicle industry’s present difficulties is at all appropriate. I conclude by saying that the article on the front page of today’s Australian Financial Review is inaccurate and misleading in what it seeks to put forward.

page 193

QUESTION

CANBERRA AIRPORT

Mr HASLEM:

– Is the Minister for Transport aware that the Canberra Airport is the fifth busiest airport, measured by passenger movements, in Australia? Is he aware that the Canberra Airport terminal building is the smallest in any capital city in Australia and is quite inadequate? Can the Minister inform the House when the Government intends to do something about this disgraceful state of affairs, which must reflect adversely on the nation and its capital?

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Transport · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– I am well aware of the congestion problem at the terminal building at the Canberra Airport. I am also well aware of the fact that it is the fifth busiest airport in the Commonwealth. Currently, studies are being undertaken within the Department as a matter of urgency of plans that are necessary to upgrade the facilities at the Canberra Airport. Of course, other problems are also competing for the resources. There is the problem at the Perth Airport. We have approved plans. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has tabled a report in the Parliament in relation to the Brisbane Airport and the Commonwealth Government has approved the plans to go ahead so that we will have the first stages of that airport completed, I think, by 1986. We are most concerned about the present congestion problem and we are doing everything in our power to try to expedite improvements to the facilities at the Canberra Airport.

page 194

QUESTION

FIVE-YEAR DEFENCE PROGRAM

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

-I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. I refer to the revised and diminished version of the 1976 five-year defence program which was announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday. As the apparent effect of this recycled five-year defence program is to achieve a. lower rate of real spending over the new five-year cycle than was targeted for in the 1976-1981 cycle-that is now some $l,500m below target in real terms- is the Government’s perception of the strategic situation in the wake of Afghanistan less serious than it was when the 1976 program was drawn together? If not, how does the Minister justify, firstly, what is a markedly lower real level of defence spending over the new five-year defence program than was proposed in 1976 and, secondly, that at the end of the new five-year cycle total spending will not have made good the huge shortfall of some $ 1 ,500m in real terms in the 1 976- 1 98 1 five-year defence program that already exists?

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

– The Government’s position with respect to the strategic assessment has been stated, I thought, with absolute clarity by the Prime Minister. I addressed myself to the matter yesterday afternoon. It was a matter of some disappointment to me that my friend did not avail himself of the opportunity of hearing what assessment I placed upon the position. Therefore, the honourable gentleman in a sense is at a measure of disadvantage. His question rests upon the assumption that there is lower spending. In point of fact, if the honourable gentleman addressed himself to the matter with particularity he would find that his arithmetic is wrong. A week or so ago he had Kabul some 13,000 kilometres from Australia. I think he is an atrocious student, not merely in terms of geography but also in terms of doing simple sums.

page 194

QUESTION

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

Mr BRADFIELD:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and involves air traffic. In view of the recent announcements of the construction of international hotels in the Sydney area and the many statements alluding to increased tourist activity, I ask the Minister: How will the present overstrained facilities at

Sydney Airport cope with the increased passenger traffic needed to make the construction of these hotels viable? Has the New South Wales Government made any positive contributions to the Federal Government and to the Minister that would lead to sensible and acceptable airport expansion? What steps is the State Government taking to protect intrastate services in New South Wales?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– That will go well in Kogarah.

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

-The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith has a very real interest in this question, as does the honourable member for Barton who asked the question. Quite clearly there are some very pressing reasons why both the Commonwealth and New South Wales State governments need to get together to determine the future of the Kingsford-Smith Airport and the airport requirements for the future in the Sydney area. The Prime Minister was well aware of this three years ago when he wrote to the Premier of New South Wales and suggested that we set up a committee called the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee. The Committee was established to undertake a study of the need for a major airport facility in Sydney. That Committee consisted of both Commonwealth and State officials. They undertook a very extensive review. They sought the advice of consultants. Before Christmas a request was made by my predecessor, Mr Nixon, to the Committee to report by a certain date in December because it was felt that there had been sufficient deliberation for the Committee to report.

Unfortunately the State members of that Committee chose not to associate themselves with any aspect of the joint study. Quite clearly the State Government was concerned about the political implications of being involved in any recommendation whatsoever. It left the Commonwealth officials high and dry with a recommendation for the development of a closespace parallel runway east of the north-south runway at Kingsford-Smith. Subject to both governments agreeing to this proposal and the other proposals that might flow from it, it would be possible, according to the report, to have the improvements operational by 1987. The hotel capacity in Sydney, the tourist trade in Sydney and the whole business and commercial life of Sydney could well be restricted unless there is a sensible meeting of the governments and people concerned to ensure that Sydney remains the premier international airport in the States of the Commonwealth.

I am very concerned that, although Mr Landa dissociated himself from the report- he would have nothing to do with it- and the Acting Premier came out with a nasty statement about it in December, we have heard nothing formal from the New South Wales Government. The Leader of the Country Party in New South Wales has called upon the Premier to explain his position in respect of intrastate and country air services, as to how they will be affected as a result of the New South Wales Government’s not proceeding or agreeing at least to talk about the future airport needs of Sydney. So the whole thing is left in abeyance because the State Government will not face up to the political considerations. It is not really concerned about what it does to Sydney or the country people- or the people out in Castlereagh for that matter. There is a byelection campaign in Castlereagh at present, but the State Government is not concerned about the people out there.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the Minister to bring his answer to a conclusion.

Mr HUNT:

– Some people are anxious to have an international airport and I would like to conclude by tabling a letter, if that is possible.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may ask for leave to incorporate it in Hansard. If he wishes to table it he may do so.

Mr HUNT:

-I would like to table a letter that I received from the Premier of South Australia, Mr Tonkin, who has offered to discuss with the Commonwealth the development of an international airport in South Australia. As a New South Welshman I would find this a most unfortunate state of affairs, but at least he has made the offer to co-operate. I would also like to table the information that has not yet been provided to the Major Airports Needs of Sydney Committee by the State officials. The whole thing is something of a disaster. I hope that the New South Wales Government knows what damage it is doing to its own city.

page 195

QUESTION

DEATH OF MR TONY JOYCE

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I draw his attention to the premature death of the outstanding Australian journalist, Mr Tony Joyce, due to wounds inflicted while undertaking a hazardous assignment in Zambia for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I also want to place on record the fact that the Prime Minister and his good lady visited Mr Joyce in London prior to his death. Is the right honourable gentleman aware that the

ABC does not insure its overseas staff against injury or death while covering hazardous assignments, including military action, because of a Public Service Board policy which also fails to recognise the special risks taken by foreign affairs and trade personnel overseas? Is he aware that as a result the widow and six-year-old son of Mr Joyce will be paid little more in compensation than he would have earned in a year? Will the honourable gentleman consider, as a matter of urgency, directing the Public Service Board to permit the ABC to make a substantial ex gratia payment to Mrs Joyce which would take into account the fact that Mr Joyce, in normal circumstances, would have had a working life of some 30 years and, further, that he died performing a service of national importance? Will the Prime Minister also take action to ensure that other ABC journalists like Mr Joyce and other government employees, particularly in foreign affairs and trade posts overseas, operating at considerable personal risk can be adequately insured?

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

– I will certainly have the matters that the honourable gentleman raised examined and I will report further to him in relation to them. I think the honourable gentleman’s question has served as a very timely reminder that in a number of areas of activity people, in pursuit of their professions, can be placed in great danger. Indeed, if they are to do their jobs as they would expect they probably have to visit areas of very real danger and concern. Southern Africa has been one of these. It was tragic and unfortunate that in the proper reporting of instances that occurred Tony Joyce was badly wounded and later died. Since I am saying something about this particular matter I know that the House would want me to add that all members of this House, and I am sure all people in the wider Australian community, would like our general sympathy and concern expressed to Mrs Joyce. Mr Speaker, it may be a little unusual but perhaps you would have no objection to passing on our expression of sympathy.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will do so. I will report to Mrs Joyce the expression of sympathy by the Prime Minister in which all members of the chamber joined.

page 195

QUESTION

LIQUID PETROLEUM GAS

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Trade and Resources. In view of the rapidly escalating price of liquid petroleum gas, can the Minister assure country gas consumers and country gas utilities that the distribution of natural gas by spur lines from the main SydneyMoomba line will proceed more rapidly?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

-I am well aware of the concern of country gas utilities about the recent increases in the price of liquefied petroleum gas. Indeed, the Government was prompted to give a subsidy of $80 a tonne to assist the users of LPG. But it has to be recognised that LPG is a very valuable energy commodity and that there are particular requirements for it by the chemical industry and certain industrial users. It is an important alternative transportable fuel. Therefore, it is in the best long term interest of Australia if people can move to other types of energy. It is in the nation’s interest and in their interest. The best alternative form of energy for those using LPG, particularly those country utilities which are reticulating it, is natural gas. It is the Government ‘s intention to give assistance in speeding up the distribution of natural gas. Already decisions have been taken to extend the Sydney-Moomba line as far south as Wagga Wagga and this will be a very valuable alternative form of energy for people there. People ought to recognise also that if they can move on to electricity instead of LPG in the long term that is in their best interest both economically and nationally.

page 196

QUESTION

DEFENCE DISCUSSIONS

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Is the Prime Minister in a position to state whether there is any truth in reports to the effect that just prior to the constitutional crisis of November 1975 secret discussions took place between the then commander-in-chief of Australia and the chiefs of the defence forces for the purpose of placing Australia in a high state of readiness or, as it is commonly known, on ‘red alert’? Is he able to state whether there is any truth in the report that the then commander-in-chief discussed the same matter with Ambassador Marshall Green of the United States and apprised him of the possibility of Australian defence forces being placed in a high state of readiness, and that he asked the ambassador to indicate whether the United States would be prepared to send military aid to the new government in the event of a civil war?

Mr Anthony:

– Are you trying to get a headline, Clyde?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-This is not a funny matter. It is not a matter to joke about. I just want to know whether the Prime Minister is in a position to state whether it is true. Finally, is he able to state whether he himself was privy to discussions of that character? If he is in a position to state whether it is true, will he do so?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman seems to be excelling himself this morning. I understand that the reason he would be wanting to ask that question and to get the denial that he knows will be coming- because, of course, what he has suggested is highly fanciful- is so that he can add to his book and once again make quite sure that he can by implication, if the former Prime Minister ever said these things, nail them as something that is quite untrue and totally fanciful. There were high level discussions which could have led to common sense, but the Prime Minister of the day participated in them and as a consequence they did not lead to common sense.

page 196

QUESTION

AID TO AFGHANISTAN

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Has the Prime Minister been informed of the statement made by Mr Hayden on television that Afghanistan could have taken a different course if wealthy Western nations like Australia had been more generous with aid to what had been a democratic and independent nation? Does the Prime Minister agree that, since the deposition of King Amanullah in 1929, the replacement of Afghanistan’s presidents Daoud, Taraki and Amin by the Leninist methods of violence or murder is a democratic procedure? Does the Prime Minister think that the appointment of President Karmal through the agency of the Soviet Union, plus the organised destruction of Islamic life styles, is also democratic? Will this be a vital issue in the 1980 election should the present Leader of the Opposition sustain his position?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I must say that I hope the present Leader of the Opposition does sustain his position. The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that we can only speculate on how different things might have been if there had been more Western aid for a democratic and independent Afghanistan. That seemed to be a somewhat extraordinary statement because what it is saying is that Afghanistan had been independent and democratic. If so, I would like to know when that might have been. In 1973, as the honourable gentleman reminded us, there was an army coup d’etat and Daoud was installed as President. It was a dictatorship, and I do not think any element of democracy was present. In 1978 the President and leading Ministers were killed by communist-led army groups and Taraki was appointed Prime Minister and President. Again there was no element of democracy in the country. In 1979 President Taraki was overthrown and subsequently killed by Amin. In

December 1979 the Soviet Union intervened militarily. Three days after it intervened President Amin was alleged to have asked it in, and a little while after that the people he asked in cut his throat. None of that seems to be entirely democratic. What the Leader of the Opposition means by a democratic Afghanistan I fail to understand.

page 197

QUESTION

DWELLING RENT EXPENDITURE

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Treasurer aware that the national accounts show that expenditure on dwelling rent has increased from 13.7 per cent of total private final consumption expenditure in 1974-75 to 17.3 per cent in 1978-79? What has caused this large increase? Does the increase mean that households now have less to spend on other items, so reducing their standard of living and reducing the general level of economic activity?

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

-Without checking the national accounts I cannot say at this moment whether the percentages quoted by the honourable gentleman are correct. I have no reason to believe that they are not correct, if he has given thought to the preparation of the question. He has asked me to draw the conclusion that those figures represent a reduction in economic activity, particularly in the housing area. I would have thought that the honourable gentleman would be aware that in that area in particular over the past year or more the level of activity has increased significantly. This has been due in part to the very high levels of lending for housing emanating from financial institutions, particularly the banks and building societies, where the levels of lending have been very high by the standards of recent years.

As I understand it, and this is subject to precise checking, the indicators show that home ownership, which has always been a very important and sensitive thing to Australians throughout the country, has remained at extremely high levels. The honourable gentleman will be as aware as anybody else in this House that the greatest problems remaining to be solved in relation to people desiring to rent, to build or to buy existing houses are the continuing problems of inflation. Of course, the Government’s position on that is quite well known. We will continue to address our minds to that situation.

page 197

QUESTION

EXPORT OF WOOL TO SOVIET UNION

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Trade and Resources aware of reports that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is considering calling for a ban on exports of wool to the Soviet Union?

Would such a ban be effective in making clear to the Russians Australia’s concern over their invasion of Afghanistan?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I am aware that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has been discussing the matter. In fact, somebody from the radio program AM rang me this morning to get my comments on it. What I said was that to impose any ban on the export of wool would be useless because the Soviet Union is highly selfreliant on its own production of wool and we supply about 40 per cent of its imports, or only about 10 per cent of its needs. Irrespective of how recalcitrant and bloody-minded the ACTU can be, I would have thought that it would have wanted a bit of logic behind what it was doing. Indeed, I would have hoped that it would also have got some lead from the Australian Labor Party. We have heard the Leader of the Opposition say that it would be silly to impose bans on the export of goods unless such bans were effective and unless such action was in concert with that of other countries. That being the case, I would have thought that Mr Hawke might have got on the phone to Mr Hayden to find out just exactly what the ALP position was. If he had done so, he would have found out that the Australian Labor Party is against any bans, according to the Leader of the Opposition. Had they spoken, Mr Hayden would have said: ‘Well, if we were in government of course we would not want any bans and if you imposed bans we would be against them’.

I think it is very important for the Australian nation to understand clearly where the ALP stands on this issue and to cut through a lot of the hyprocrisy and humbug we hear from the Opposition about wanting to impose embargoes and accusing us and trying to embarrass us while, if it were in government, it would not impose such embargoes itself.

page 197

QUESTION

EXPORT OF WOOL TO SOVIET UNION

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Paterson. Will the Prime Minister tell the Parliament what steps the Government proposes to take to ensure that normal trading relations with the Soviet Union will be maintained if trade unionists refuse to handle commodities destined for the Soviet? Specifically, are there any plans by the Government to deal with the significant quantity of wool now on the wharves at the port of Melbourne, purchased by the Campagnie D ‘Importation de Laines and the Sanderson company at

Portland, destined for the Soviet Union and clearly labelled ‘Nareen*?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister for Industrial Relations.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I do not propose to call the Minister again until I feel reasonably confident that he will be heard in silence.

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. As far as I know, the Minister for Industrial Relations does not own Nareen; it is owned by the Prime Minister and he should answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Young:

– This is a very important matter and the Prime Minister should answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Port Adelaide.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

– I am aware that the Australian Council of Trade Unions discussed this matter yesterday. As I undertstand it, there were deep divisions within the ACTU on it. The ACTU was unable to resolve its attitude to this question and I understand that it comes up for debate again today. So the whole question asked by the honourable member for Port Adelaide is hypothetical and in that sense I would think -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The performance on my left is not suitable conduct for a national parliament. The Minister is entitled to give an answer.

Mr Young:

– We will not sell our souls for wool. Remember 1 97 1 when you said: ‘ We will not sell our souls for wheat ‘? It comes back to haunt you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will remain silent.

Mr STREET:

-Therefore the question asked by the honourable member for Port Adelaide is entirely hypothetical. But one issue which is not hypothetical and in which I thought he might have evinced some greater interest is a strike by the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia which is holding up $450m worth of wool in Australian wool stores.

page 198

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr HYDE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs whether he is aware that some people argue that because the major resource-based industries are capital intensive rather than labour intensive they will not create many jobs. Can the Minister inform the House of the employment creating potential of major projects that are currently in prospect and why an open economy will generate both development projects and more jobs?

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I thank the honourable gentleman for his question because, coming from Western Australia, he knows, as I do, of the massive job creating potential of major project development. It also gives me an opportunity to inform the House of the massive -

Mr Scholes:

– What about the taxpayers’ money Court is spending for the Liberal Party on television?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Corio has continually interjected this week. I ask him to remain silent or I will have to deal with him under the Standing Orders.

Mr VINER:

– It also gives me the opportunity to inform the House of the massive investment which is about to come to Australia as a result of the economic policies of this Government and, furthermore, of the rapid acceleration of the level of such investment. I simply give these figures to the House: By April of last year investment totalling $12, 400m was either firmly committed or in the feasibility stage. Six months later that figure had increased by 3 1 per cent and had reached $ 16,300m. Some 44 per cent of thatand this is very important for the House to appreciate- representing $7,200m, is to be invested in manufacturing projects. We know of the devastation of the manufacturing industry that occurred during the Whitlam years of 1974-1975. When one converts that kind of investment, true enough into capital intensive investment and direct employment creating potential, one sees that at a minimum some 60,000 jobs will be created by 1985. 1 say ‘at a minimum’ because some of the job creating potential of these projects has not been finally estimated.

The honourable gentleman also raises another very important question which really answers the critics. I note that when the former Manager of Opposition Business was in Perth recently he sought to denigrate the job creating potential of major project development in Western Australia. It stands to reason that any given level of investment in either labour intensive projects or capital intensive projects will, by the effect of the money invested in the economy, be reflected in jobs. As the economy grows as a result of these projects, so too will there be employment growth. In fact, this is what we have seen happening in Australia in the last 12 months, with a growth in employment of some 122,000.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr VINER:

-When one translates that to the scene in Western Australia, with an investment magnitude of some $7,000m in the early 1980s, one sees the massive job creating potential for that State.

page 199

QUESTION

EXPORT OF RIFLES TO SOVIET UNION

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Trade and Resources: Has the Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed that in 1977-78 Australia exported some 16,000 rifles to the Soviet Union? Are such exports continuing? If so, how can he reconcile this with the fact that the Government is seeking to ground Australia’s Olympic team because of the present situation in Afghanistan?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I noticed that one of the newspapers, hoping to make from it a little capital with which to embarrass the Government, found it interesting to write an article about Australia selling rifles to the Soviet Union. When one knows the facts, the boot is on the other foot. These rifles, some 16,000 in number, which were imported from the Soviet Union, were very cheap .22 sporting rifles. They were found to be ineffective and were returned to the Soviet Union. That is why they were classified as exports.

page 199

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
HOTHAM, VICTORIA

-Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether he has any further information regarding the Russian document which he told the House showed that the Soviet Union had the view that the holding of the Olympic Games in Moscow was an endorsement of its socialist foreign policy?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-As it would happen, a copy of an extract from the document was put in my hands earlier this morning and a little later I will ask for leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. I would like to remind honourable gentlemen of one or two points in it and of one or two additional points which I think have not come to the notice of the House. In the third paragraph the extract states:

The decision to give the honored right to hold the Olympic Games in the capital of the world ‘s first socialist state has become a convincing testimony to the general recognition of the historical importance and the correctness of the foreign political course of our country, of the enormous services of the Soviet Union in the struggle for peace, . . .

I think we can see how the Soviet Union regards itself in relation to Afghanistan. The document goes on:

The Muscovites’ desire to take upon themselves the organization of the Olympics was a manifestation of the high ideals of the Peace Program, consistently carried out by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Just by chance the document does not mention the role of the Soviet armies in Afghanistan. The document goes on:

More than ever before in its 80-year history, the Olympic Games have turned into an event of great social and political significance and actively exert an influence on all aspects of the life of society. It is clear that international relations, the disposition of political and class forces in the world arena, and the presence in the world of two opposing systemscapitalism, which has outlived its day and socialism, which is growing and becoming stronger with each day- leave their imprint on the Olympic Games, as a large-scale social phenomenon. . . .

The forces of reaction attempt to use the Olympic movement and the Olympic Games in the interests of the exploiting classes, for the purposes of commerce and business, of propagandizing the bourgeois way of life, and the capitalist system and its ideology, and for the distraction of youth from the political and class struggle.

If anyone suggests that the Soviet Union does not use the Olympic Games for political purposes, I suggest that he read this extract in full. I ask for leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Young:

– We don’t know what it is. Could we have a look at it?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The new Leader of the House -

Mr Young:

– Has Tony Eggleton seen it?

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Young:

– Has it been through the Liberal Party Secretariat?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat.

Mr Young:

– It is only a photostat.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Port Adelaide that if he -

Mr Young:

– Tony Eggleton just typed it up.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The behaviour of the honourable member for Port Adelaide is unacceptable to me. I warn him that if there is any repetition of it I will immediately name him. The Prime Minister has asked for leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether leave is granted.

Mr Hayden:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

MOSCOW-CAPITAL OF THE 1980 OLYMPICS

A translation from Handbook for Party Activists; Moscow, November 1979, pp 158-171.

The year is 1 976. Montreal transfers the symbolic Olympic baton to Moscow. The 21st Olympic Games are declared closed; on a huge information board, transformed electronically into a movie screen, Red Square appears; the familiar outline of the Spasskiy Tower becomes visible; the pealing of bells of the Kremlin is heard; and a Russian girl with the traditional bread and salt pronounces: “Welcome to Moscow in 1980!”

Thus began the new Olympic four-year period, the crowning event of which will now be the 22nd Olympic Summer Games. They will take place in the capital of our Motherland, in Moscow, from July 19 to August 3, 1 980.

The decision to give the honored right to hold the Olympic Games in the capital of the world ‘s first socialist state has become a convincing testimony to the general recognition of the historical importance and the correctness of the foreign political course of our country, of the enormous services of the Soviet Union in the struggle for peace, its contribution to the international Olympic movement, and to the development of physical culture and sports.

The Muscovites’ desire to take upon themselves the organization of the Olympics was a manifestation of the high ideals of the Peace Program, consistently carried out by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This, in fact, is how our state will carry out the international obligations it has taken upon itself, including those that appear in the Final Acts of the Helsinki Accords on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

We consider the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow to be one of the concrete expressions of the materialisation of the Helsinki Accords in which, in particular, it is written: “For the purpose of expanding existing ties and co-operation in the area of sports, the participant states will encourage appropriate contacts and exchanges, including sports meetings and competitions of all kinds which are conducted on the basis of generally accepted international rules, regulations, and practices”

The 1980 Olympics will serve as an important contribution not only to the development of the Olympic movement, but also to the matter of international detente, the strengthening of peace, and the friendship of peoples.

More than ever before in its 80-year history, the Olympic Games have turned into an event of great social and political significance and actively exert an influence on all aspects of the life of society. It is clear that internationsl relations, the disposition of political and class forces in the world arena, and the presence in the world of two opposing systemscapitalism, which has outlived its day and socialism, which is growing and becoming stronger with each day- leave their imprint on the Olympic Games, as a large-scale social phenomenon.

The history of the Olympic movement is characterized by a constant struggle between the progressive and reactive forces. The former strive to more widely propagate noble Olympic ideas, to place the Olympic movement and sports at the service of the education and strengthening of a person’s health, and to use them as a means of bettering mutual understanding and strengthening friendship between peoples of all countries and nations.

The forces of reaction attempt to use the Olympic movement and the Olympic Games in the interests of the exploiting classes, for the purposes of commerce and business, of propagandizing the bourgeois way of life, and the capitalist system and its ideology, and for the distraction of youth from the political and class struggle.

The most critical ideological struggle between the two opposing social systems has an effect in the most direct manner on the choice of cities for the Olympics, on the program of the competitions, and on the treatment of the preparations for and conducting of the Olympic Games.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, constantly showing its concern for the welfare of the people, for the satisfaction of their material and spiritual needs, has created the conditions for the development of truly mass physical culture and sports, and for bringing them under conditions of developed socialism into the lives of the people in the fullest and most genuine way.

Physical culture and sports in the USSR, in solving the tasks of educating a healthy, harmoniously developed person, have a great influence on the entire course of the development and formation of the Olympic movement. And it is in this respect that the Moscow Olympics will achieve a qualitatively new stage.

Our country’s friends are striving to give support and assistance to the 1 980 Games in every way possible. Our enemies are attempting to discredit our work in preparing for the Olympic competition, and to undermine the authority of the Soviet Union. The very fact of the recognition of Moscow as the capital of the 1980 Olympics provokes the most violent attacks on the part of our ideological opponents. Bourgeois propaganda is attempting to prove that the USSR is supposedly not in a position to technically provide for the Olympic Games, that the people of Moscow will not be able to accommodate their guests, etc. Of course, behind these vain attempts to slander the Moscow Olympics, a second, more global aim can be clearly seen- the attempt to discredit the very system of socialism, its potentialities, achievements, Soviet democracy, our way of life.

The preparation for and the conducting of modern Olympic Games with their extensive program, large number of participating countries and sportsmen, the reception of congressmen, judges, tourists, the organization of radio and television transmissions, the operation of the press-centre and the providing of services to the representatives of the mass information media is not an easy matter, but a complex one, demanding great efforts.

To be awarded the right to hold the Olympic Games is a great honour, for it is an acknowledgement of the country’s merit, its contribution to the Olympic movement, its resources for conducting the Olympics on the highest organizational and sports technology level.

And Moscow, having taken on the role of host to the 1980 Olympics, will certainly fulfil these functions with its characteristic hospitality, dignity and care for its guests. The 1980 Games will gather together approximately 1 3,000 sportsmen and officials from 120-130 countries, 3,500 sports judges, 3,000 participants of congresses of the International Olympic Committee and international sports federations. There will be 7,000 representatives of the press, television and radio to report on the competitions. The arrival of more than 600,000 tourists is expected, half of them foreigners. This is more than Munich and Montreal welcomed in their time.

Moscow is already completing the construction of new and the reconstruction of existing sports buildings, hotels, and hostels. An extensive network of restaurants, dining halls, cafes, stores and enterprises providing everyday services, and transportation and communications projects is being created. They are being equipped with up-to-date technology and sports equipment

Worldwide experience in Olympics-related construction attests to the fact that preparing a city for the Games is a complex urban planning task. The organisers of the Olympic Games usually encounter contradictions arising as a result of the demands of the International Olympic Committee and sports federations with regard to the number of sports buildings and their capacities and the capacities of the stands.

The organisers of previous Olympics, having expended considerable means for the construction of new buildings, were unable rationally to dispose of many of these after the Games. This was the case with many sports buildings in Rome, Tokyo, Munich and Montreal.

Ill approaching the implementation of the construction program, the Moscow Soviet of People’s Deputies enunciated its general principles.

First, all construction will be of high quality, but without unnecessary extravagance, and with an eye to its future rational use. They are not to remain as dead monuments to the Games but must fully serve the Soviet people afterwards.

Second, the minimum distance between the sports buildings and the Olympic village must be calculated as a factor.

Third, the Olympics’ sports facilities will technically meet all Olympic standards.

On the basis of competition among Moscow localities for the accommodation of participants and guests of the 1980 Olympics, a city building plan which was in accord with the General Plan for the Development of the Capital was adopted.

Moscow is a modern socialist city whose development is provided for in long-range and five-year plans. Therefore, everything that is to be done for the Olympic Games will be fully incorporated in the long-range plan for Moscow’s development: the building of hotels, camping grounds, personal service enterprises, modernization of airports, railroad stations, and city transportation facilities; expansion of international and inter-city automatic telephone exchanges, television and radio channel capacity, etc.

Olympic preparations will provide an incentive to bring to life projects to improve the municipal services of the capital that have been incorporated into national plans. The longrange plan for the development of Moscow has been redrafted to take into account the speeded up construction and commissioning of individual projects by 1980.

It should be stressed that the preparation for and the holding of the Games will not affect the rate of residential and cultural service facilities construction in Moscow and other Olympic cities of the USSR. More residential buildings are being constructed now than in previous years. Moscovites are getting not less than 100,000 free, equipped apartments annually.

The implementation of measures to prepare the capital for the 22nd Olympic Games is an important step in carrying out the task assigned by L. I. Brezhnev to make Moscow a communist show place.

It will contain 6 Olympic complexes. The main one is being formed around the Central Stadium imeni Lenin in Luzhniki. The colourful, formal ceremonies of the opening and the closing of the Games will take place at its Large Arena. The final soccer meets and the track and field events- the most popular sport contests- will take place there. The Small Sports Arena (Malaya sportivnaya arena) at the Luzhniki Stadium, whose stands nave a seating capacity for 12,000 persons, is being covered and converted into a large sports hall where volleyball competitions will be held. The open swimming pool, which is also being modernized, will be the scene of water polo competitions. They will be viewed by 10,000 persons. The sports palace will be turned over to the gymnasts and judo contestants. It will seat 14,000 sports fans. A new general sports hall with a capacity for 2,500 persons is being built near the tennis courts.

A second sports complex will be set up in the area of Leningrad Prospect. It contains the oldest stadiums of the capital, those of the “Dinamo ‘ ‘, the Young Pioneers, and the sports installations of the Central Army Sports Club (TsSKA) which are being supplemented with new buildings. The all-purpose “Dinamo” Gymnasium, being built on Lavrochkin Street and having grandstand seating for 5,000, is part of this complex.

The third sports complex is in Krylatskoye, where there is already a world-renowned rowing channel. Not far from here the first covered bicycle track in our country, with grandstand seating for 6,000, is being built. The first new Olympic construction project is underway right next to it- a paved circular road for bicyclists, stretching for 13.5 km. In this same area an archery field with temporary grandstand seating for 3,000 is being laid out.

The fourth complex will consist of two new very large sports structures a covered stadium and a swimming pool in the area of Mir Prospect. The covered stand will have a removable partition dividing it into two separate halls. This will be the first- and an excellent one at that- enclosed stadium in Moscow, with a regulation soccer field and running tracks. Even the swimming pool will be first among its Moscow counterparts, and with its size and grandstand space it will completely meet the requirements of the International Sports Federation.

The Sports Palace in Sokol’niki is part of the fifth Olympic sports complex, as is a new all-purpose sports hall with grandstand seating for 5,000 in Izmaylovo, where the weight-lifting meets will take place. In Mytishchy, a Moscow suburb, the “Dinamo” target range is being renovated. The sixth complex is the equestrian centre being built in the Vitebsk Forest Park.

In the area of Michurinskiy Prospect, and stretching over an area of 107 hectares, a new and well-equipped microrayon (neighborhood unit) is under construction; it has eighteen 16-story residences. This microrayon will be the Olympic Village, reserved for national sports delegations and their attendants. The athletes will be housed two to a room. Administrative, cultural, commercial, and other centers are being built on the area of the Olympic Village.

At the conclusion of the Games, 14,000 Moscow residents will receive confortable two and three-room apartments in this picturesque microrayon of the capital. More than 40 airport complexes will be expanded, renovated, and rebuilt for the Olympics.

Specialists are delivering designs for the reconstruction of the more interesting of them; namely, the airports of the Olympics- the Moscow air terminal and the airport at Tallin, where, as is generally known, the Olympic sailing regatta will be held. In 1980 Moscow airports will serve approximately 60,000 passengers per day. In order to cope with such a volume of transport, the airport at Vnukovo has been modernized, and the airport at Domodedovo has been improved. The airport complex at Sheremetevo has been expanded considerably. Here yet another runway has been constructed on the landing field, designed to handle not only the heaviest contemporary air liners, but also those which will appear in the future. The estimated maximum passthrough capacity of Sheremetevo and Vnukovo airports will increase.

Many services are being prepared to meet the Olympians. For example, it is expected that on days of the Games, the Moscow transportation system will have to transport more than 30 million passengers per day. This is 4 million more than now. State Automobile inspection (GAI) of Moscow has developed a general plan for organizing the flow of all types of transport as an aid to drivers, illuminated Olympic street signs are being erected. During the two weeks of the Olympics, GAI employees will conduct service along the transport arteries of the city in full dress, as is customary on great holidays. A green light will be guaranteed for the 1980 Olympics.

The Moscow Soviet Executive Committee has adopted a decision on the widespread introduction of modern technical means of regulating the flow of traffic, including use of the “Stan” telecontrol system for the regulation of traffic. At complex intersections, television cameras and electronic devices for measuring the flow of automobiles have been installed. Their signals will flow to a central board, and EVM ‘s (electronic computers) will give the optimum solution in order to avoid “ bottlenecks “and congestion.

The huge “olympic family” will be constantly under the solicitous protection of the medical services. Everything that is necessary for this was set forth in the master plan for the organization and management of the medical-sanitary support for the Olympic Games in Moscow and Tallin, and also in Leningrad, Kiev, and Minsk, where the soccer tournament matches will be held. In compliance with the laws of the USSR, free medical care will be provided for all who come to the Games.

An international youth camp is under construction in a forest not far from Sheremetevo airport. Floors of three residential buildings have risen, and in 1 980 yet another tent city will appear in the forest meadows. A large sports complex is adjacent to training halls, a covered pool, an auditorium, a medical hygiene service post, a restaurant, and a summer theater. Representatives of youth organisations, which will come to the games from many countries of the world, will be located in this camp.

There are major means of mass media for journalists, who will be sent to Moscow in 1980. A six-story building of the main press center will be built on Zubov Boulevard. After the games, ‘Novosti’ Press Agency and the USSR Union of Journalists will be located here.

With the help of modern communications facilities, the Olympic Games have been transformed into a world event. Nearly one billion television viewers watched the games in Munich. One-and-a-half billion people from almost 100 countries of the world saw the Montreal Games on TV. It is expected that the audience of the Moscow Olympics will be significantly larger. For television broadcasting of the games of the XXII Olympics in Moscow an Olympic television and radio complex is being set up, which consists of the Olympic television and radio center (which is being constructed adjacent to the existing one in Ostankino), a switching center, and television networks at 24 sports facilities. The complex will make it possible to transmit the events of the Games in color on 18-20 channels and to radio-broadcast 100 programs. Two artificial earth satellites will provide transmission of the Olympic reporting to all continents. One of these satellites has already been launched and is being tested. It is important here to note; the reconstruction and the expansion of the Ostankino television center is necessary not only for the broadcasting of the Olympic Games. It is necessary also so that the programs of the central television may be relayed to the most distant regions of our vast country at a time convenient for the television viewers. The development of television was provided for by the decisions of the 25th Congress of the CPSU.

Special attention has been given to questions of control of the Games, to equipping the Olympic facilities with the most modern technology. An automated control system, ‘Olympiad’, is located next to the great arena Luzhnik. With the aid of this system, the Organisational Committee of Olympiad-80’ controls the conduct of work in preparation for the Games on the basis of line charts, takes into account the financial and bookkeeping operations, the training of personnel, and provides for the registration of athletes, officials, and journalists. The ASU will help the organisers of the Games in the distribution of entrance tickets and passes to the competitions, will prepare the necessary information on the athletes, on the course of the Olympic competitions, and on world and Olympic records, and will compile, according to a set program, the final results of the 1980 Olympics. The ASU’s technical equipment is, on the whole, provided with apparatus manufactured in our country and in countries united by CEMA’s integration plan. By its engineering characteristics and quantity of computer technology, the ‘Olympiad ‘ ASU will satisfy all modern requirements.

Taking into account the experience of the press corps at the Olympic Games in Tokyo, Mexico, Munich, and Montreal, the Organisational Committee of ‘Olympiad-80’ foresees the creation of up to 20-25 auxiliary press centers, besides the main press center, at all Olympic installations. All the press centers will be equipped with the latest information equipment. Journalists will be able to receive starting lists, results of competitions, video information from television screens, and use telegraph and telephonic equipment to communicate with all countries of the world.

To provide for reliable and operative telephonic-telegraph communications with foreign countries, construction of an international automatic telephone station with 1500 channels is under way in Moscow, and the Moscow international station ‘Teleks’ is being expanded to 2000 numbers. At Moscow ‘s Olympic stadiums, television and radio commentators will have at their disposal permanent and temporary booths equipped with monitors, microphones and telephones. In Tallin, a 3 1 4-meter radio and television tower, as well as a teletype center, ATS, and radio-telephone communications center will be under construction right up until the time of the sailing regatta.

Preparation for the XXII Olympic Games has served as a powerful stimulus for strengthening and broadening international mutually beneficial economic and scientifictechnological cooperation between the USSR and dozens of other countries.

More than three-fourths of our Olympics-related needs are provided for by national industry, known for its tremendous capabilities and potential. Many enterprises, construction organizations and scientific research organizations took an active pan in preparing for 1980 Olympics. Enterprises belonging to the country-members of the Council of Economic Mutual Assistance are supplying nearly 20 per cent of the equipment and stock necessary for the Olympic Games. For example, the Hungarian enterprise ‘Elektroimpeks’, among the first to be named ‘Official Supplier of the XXII Olympic Games in Moscow’, prepared a large display panel. Approximately 5 percent of the equipment and materials for the Games are being supplied by capitalist firms. Their interest in the Olympics Games is one concrete manifestation of international relaxation.

On 10 August 1975 at a session of the Organisational Committee for ‘Olympiad-80 ‘ the first certificates were given to enterprises which had completed preparations for manufacturing items with Olympic symbols. Now more than 2,000 Soviet enterprises have been ordered by the Organisational Committee to produce above 12,000 such items.

An integral pan of the Olympic Games is their cultural program. Those who come to the Games will be able not only to see the athletes contending, but to get an impression of the spirit of the city conducting the Olympiad, of its people, of its cultural achievements, and of its traditions. For Olympians, the cultural program is a necessary respite after the tension of the sports competition. Musicians, actors, poets, and painters will help to create the atmosphere of a genuine worldwide holiday during the days of the Games.

It is notable that during the Olympic Games tourists will be spending no more than a third of their time at the competitions. Those planning the Moscow Olympics are making it their goal to make the most rational use of their remaining time. Basic directions for extensive and interesting cultural programs, including visits to theaters, concerts, exhibits, museums, and excursions to sightseeing spots have been developed. The life of the Soviet people is a satisfying, fullblooded life. Our guests will be impressed by this even in the relatively short rime of their stay in the USSR.

Many masterpieces of Russian architecture will be renovated during the days of preparation for the Olympic Games.

During the period 1976-80, the Soviet government has earmarked tens of millions of rubles for the restoration of historical and cultural monuments. A total of 176 Moscow architectural monuments, including the Kushovo, Ostankino, and Kolomenskoye museum-estates, the XVII century palaces on the Kropotkinskaya Embankment, the Novodevichi Monastery ensemble, the Tsaritsino, et cetera, have been rehabilitated and restored. Tourists will see our Suzdal city reserve, the ancient Zagorsk complexes, Pereyaslavl, and other cities which surround the capital of the Olympiad.

The Soviet travel bureau ‘Intourist’ has devised 20 itineraries and types of excursion trips around the country. The ‘Intourist’ Olympic program is structured so that it Wil give foreign guests maximum information on the past, present, and future of our government. The tourist excursion organisations of the Soviet trade-unions are also playing an active role in the preparations for the XXII Olympiad. For Summer ‘80, the (Ail-Union Central Trade-Union Council) has mapped out 37 routes and excursions for tens of thousands of foreign and Soviet tourists.

In consonance with the principles of the Olympic movement, the content of the culture program will be determined according to the ideals of peace, friendship and cooperation among peoples. Theater repertoires, orchestras, ensembles, individual performers, amateur art groups, exhibit themes, and mass arrangements in culture and relaxation parks and in libraries, et cetera, are answering this task.

Special sections of the programs, where joint performances of masters of sport are envisaged, are dedicated to the themes of the popularization of the Olympic movement.

Exactly one year before the Olympics July- through August 1979, the Spartakiad took place. Today this traditional, all-peoples sports holiday has special distinguishing marks. According to its time span, program, level of judging, and technical equipment for the sports structures, the Spartakiad approximated the conditions of the 1980 Olympics. Over 2,000 foreign athletes, correspondents, and tourists from all continents are expected. Thus, the IS days of the Spartakiad was a substantive pre-Olympic test, not only for the sportsmen but also for the organizers of the Moscow Olympic Games.

The superb achievements of the Soviet sportsmen, and of the Muscovites in particular, in the world arena and the Olympic Games, the extensive international ties of Soviet sports and the active participation of Soviet representatives in the activities of various international sports associations played a telling role in favoring Moscow as the home of 1 980 Olympics.

The entry of the USSR National Olympic Committee into the International Olympic Committee in 1 95 1 , and the initial participation by Soviet sportsmen in the 15 th Olympic Games (Helsinki, 19S2) ushered in a new era in the international Olympic movement- the era of the struggle for the cementing and development of the Olympic ideas, for fraternity, friendship, and mutual understanding among sportsmen of all nations of the world, for true democratization of the Olympic movement, and of its governing bodies.

From that moment when Nina Romashkova (Ponomareva) became the first of Soviet sports figures to ascend the top rung of the winners pedestal at the Helsinki Olympics, the hymn of the Soviet Union has honored its sons and daughters 258 times at the Olympic arenas in Helsinki, Melbourne, Rome, Tokyo, Mexico, Munich and Montreal. Soviet sportsmen have also captured 221 silver and 204 bronze medals at the summer Olympics.

The Soviet National Team in the 15th Olympic Games garnered the same number of points as the US sportsmen in the unofficial count. In this manner an end was put to complete domination of the Olympic Games by the US. Five more times, in 1956, I960, 1964, 1972 and 1976 the Soviet sportsmen took first place in all events and only once, (Mexico, 1968) did they take second place, falling somewhat behind the US.

At the last Games, the 2 1st in Montreal, Soviet sportsmen collected 125 medals, including 47 gold, 43 silver, and 35 bronze, collecting 788.5 points in the unofficial team total. The GDR National Team was second on all counts, having edged the US Team into third place. It is interesting in this connection to stress that the largest countries in the capitalist world, which in the recent past occupied a notable position in World Sports (England, France, Italy and others) were not even among the top ten Olympic powers, while six socialist countries were represented therein. These facts are convincing evidence of the changed social conditions in the socialist countries, where physical education and sports serve human goals, are directed toward the service of education; and the physical improvement of man.

Upon entering the International Olympic Movement, representatives of Soviet sports solemnly promised from the rostrum of the session of the International Olympic Committee to faithfully observe the Olympic traditions, to multiply and enrich them, to make their own contribution within their power to the noble concept, printed in the Olympic Charter, the concept proclaiming the basic goal of the Games- to hold great sports holidays, establishing thereby international trust and making possible the creation of a better and more tranquil world.

Three decades have passed since then. The composition of the USSR’s Olympic teams has changed more than once during that time. But this year’s Soviet Olympians, as they prepare for the start of the Moscow Olympics, will also work on these same noble tasks as their predecessors. At the Olympic arenas in Moscow they will certainly strive for sports records, confirming thereby the inexhaustibility of human strength. But even more important than their goals as plenipotentiaries of our socialist state and of the Soviet people is to constantly and in all forms make a contribution to the great matter of strengthening peace and improving mutual understanding, friendship and trust on earth.

The Moscow Olympics has a characteristic trait, reflecting principles of the development of sports under conditions of socialism. “The Olympics are not just for Olympians! “ This call now sounds over all our country. Stimulae from the 1980 Olympics also nourish the massive physical education movement in the USSR. They give new impulses for the increase in the mass nature of sports and the exhibition of sports talent, and chiefly, they serve to strengthen the health of Soviet people and their education in the harmonic development of personality.

The traditional All-Union Pioneer Games under the symbolic name “The Start of Hopes” enjoys special popularity among young Soviet children. Twenty-three million children took pan in them in 1978 alone. Under the invocatory and stirring motto “The Olympians among us” they hold competitions in classes and contests in construction of school stadiums.

The task is to actively utilize the pre-Olympic period to popularize sport among all the age and social groups of the Soviet Union. More than 3,000 stadiums, about 66,000 gymnasiums, and more than 600,000 playing fields have been turned over free of charge to the Soviet people. Preparation for the 22nd Olympic Games has promoted new forms of mass initiative. In Estonia, the trade-union sports society “Iyud” developed a mass movement, “An Olympic Hope for Each Rayon. “ Spartakiads of the streets and family competition in a number of types of sports are conducted in Leningrad under the motto “From the Outdoor Stadium to the Olympic Forum.” In Lithuania the symbolic run “from the Amber Baltic to the Olympic Moscow” is popular.

The holding of the Olympic Games in Moscow will serve as a new upsurge in sports both in the capital and throughout our entire country, will promote the further development of mass physical culture and sports, and will resolve the program task set forth by the CPSU, to introduce physical culture and sport into the everyday life of the people and make the sports movement nationwide.

Of course, only several hundred of the 76 million Soviet people now involved in various forms of sports exercises will succeed in getting on the Olympic team. But each of them, in joining the fascinating world of sports, senses their participation in the Olympic movement and knows that the main thing in the Olympic concept is not victory but participation, sport for the sake of satisfaction, sport as a necessity of life.

Formed from the most varied components is this extensive concept- preparation for the 22nd Olympic Games. Herein lies the great, intense labor about which L. I. Brezhnev wrote in referring to the 1976 Olympics: “Now the Soviet people are preparing for the Moscow Olympics in 1980, and they are doing everything so that the Games are conducted at a high level of competence and produce new impulses for positive ideas of friendship and peace. “

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I thank the Leader of the Opposition. In addition there is some information from the European Parliament which I think honourable gentlemen might be interested in. A resolution was passed through the European Parliament yesterday and the information came in late last night. I will not read the full text, but the essential points are that the European Parliament was outraged by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan; was profoundly concerned by the threat to international peace; condemns the armed intervention; calls for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal; emphasises the responsibility of the USSR for the grave consequences of its actions on the policy of detente and affirms that the principles of detente are neither divisible nor limited to certain geographical regions, and confirms the urgent need to ensure that they are applied everywhere; requests the Commission to review immediately all economic, commercial and credit and financial arrangements between the USSR and the European Community; calls upon the Council and the Ministers of foreign affairs of the Nine, acting in political co-operation, to take effective measures in the light of the Commission’s report in support of efforts to end the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan; welcomes the decision provisionally to suspend food aid to Afghanistan; urges member governments to act in co-operation with all governments to condemn this flagrant act of aggression against an independent sovereign state; and calls upon the International Olympic Committee, as well as national committees of member states and the federations of the national athletic associations taking part in the Olympic Games, with the representatives of participating athletes, to reconsider whether the summer Games should take place in Moscow if the occupation of Afghanistan continues. So plainly the European Parliament wants the Olympic committees to overthrow the view that they took only a week or two ago. I am also advised that the only people in the European Parliament who opposed that resolution were some French communists and a few socialists.

page 204

QUESTION

INFORMATION NEEDS OF MIGRANTS

Dr CASS:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. When were W. D. Scott and Co. Pty Ltd and the Australian Sales Research Bureau Pty Ltd commissioned to conduct the survey of the information needs of migrants that was recommended by the Galbally inquiry in recommendation 18? When did his Department receive an interim report? When was a further report received by the Department from the agencies? What action has been taken on the reports? When will the reports be made public? What is the cause of the delay in releasing the reports?

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

– I shall provide the honourable member with a precise answer to his question later this afternoon.

page 204

QUESTION

WOOL INDUSTRY DISPUTE

Mr DRUMMOND:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister for Industrial Relations inform the House of the current position of the storemen and packers strike which is causing so much loss to the Australian wool industry and damage to our reputation as a reliable exporter?

Mr STREET:
LP

– I referred briefly to this strike a moment ago. The first thing I would like to say in relation to it is that the Federated Storemen and Packers Union is on record as saying that continued industrial action is not in the best interests of the industry. In the light of that statement, it is difficult to understand why storemen and packers in the Melbourne and Sydney wool stores have taken their destructive decision to continue the strike. The strike is in support of a wage claim which a Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission considered excessive and unjustified. It is about time unions realised that they cannot have it both ways. On the one hand they want to pursue full indexation through the processes of the Commission. On the other we have here a major union pursuing a wage claim in excess of what the Full Bench has granted, and pursuing it by strike action. Unions and their members have to recognise that if they persist with these sorts of tactics they will eventually destroy any orderly system of wage fixation. I urge storemen and packers in the Melbourne and Sydney wool stores to follow the example of their colleagues in all other wool centres and return to work, in their own interests, in the interests of their families, and in the interests of the Australian wool industry and its customers. The industry has suffered major and needless damage through this irresponsible action.

page 205

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE ACADEMY

Mr HAYDEN:

– I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to his neglect of the important subject of military education in his statement on Afghanistan. In particular, I note his surprising failure to announce his future plans for the Casey military academy. Was the Casey academy included in the initial five-year defence program and was it included in last year’s upgrading of that program? Bearing in mind the importance the Prime Minister has always placed on the academy, does he still regard it as crucial to the development of Australia’s force structure? How much of the revised defence expenditure does he intend to devote to its construction?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. It is a serious question about the future development of the Australian Defence Force. To understand the broad philosophy of a military academy for the three Services, I think it is important to understand the evolution of the Australian Defence Force over a considerable period of years. There was a time when we had three very separate Services, three very separate military boards and, in the centre trying to hold the balance, a defence department with virtually no power. Those who can remember back to those days will remember the fights that used to go on for the cutting up of the available resources. It was a victory for the Air Force, a victory for the Army or a victory for the Navy, depending on the equipment that was ordered at the time. There was not then the adequate machinery for making sure that the total capability needs of the Australian Defence Force were taken into account, that the claims of one Service were properly balanced against the claims of others and that a particular Service that was providing a particular capability was in fact the best one to do it.

Let me give the House an example. Quite obviously maritime capability can be provided by the Navy through ships at sea and through aircraft on HMAS Melbourne or by the Air Force through the effective operation of the Orion aircraft and the carrying of Harpoon missiles. Both Services contribute to the general maritime capability of the Defence Force. It is possible that the capability could be better filled in certain circumstances by the Navy arm and in other circumstances by the Air Force arm. In the earlier days there was not the adequate machinery to make sure that the defence requirements and capacities of Australia were considered on a proper and rational basis. As a result of that and after long investigation the Service departments were ultimately abolished, one defence department was created and a much more co-ordinated process of analysis and examination of proposed equipments and the proposed shape of the Defence Force was begun.

Quite obviously, the whole system has been in a state of evolution over the last 10 years and will remain so. If we want a serious debate about it we will recognise that fact. It is an important and large subject. What has happened in the United Kingdom, the United States and other places has indicated very clearly that there is an evolution in the organisation and development of a defence force and the civilian structure which is designed to complement and support it. I believe that by and large the changes have been encompassed in Australia well and effectively. I do not suggest for one moment that they are perfect. I do not suggest for one moment that there will not be further changes in the future. But I do suggest very strongly that the changes that have taken place are an infinite advance over the system that first prevailed when I and my colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, became Minister for the Army. Then we had a completely separate kind of structure and the three Services did not really get together to understand each other’s needs and requirements.

Against that background, there needs also to be an understanding of the education of the Service officers for the three Services. At the moment there is a very divided system. The three Services are certainly separate but, even within a Service, different universities and tertiary institutions are often used. There is no unified structure in the training and the elements of the Services do not come together in the way that one might expect in the formative years of a young officer’s life. I know that some say that what is needed is to build up the single Service dedication and commitment of Service officers, but that in effect is going back 10, 1 5 or 20 years. It is the Defence Force commitment, the commitment to the totality of effort, which is important. There are very few circumstances in which Australian servicemen will ever be committed in the future on a basis involving merely one Service and not requiring the active support, cooperation and help of elements of the other arms. If Australian servicemen ever have to be committed- we would all hope and pray that that will not ever occur- we know as a fact of life that it is likely to involve a joint Service and that more likely than not it will be an effort involving the three Services, not just one.

Then, quite consistent with this whole evolutionary approach of establishing one integrated, concerted, committed, hard-hitting and effective Defence Force is the training of officers of the three Services. I believe that the name ‘Casey University’ might in part have been a diversion. Let us talk about the matter in terms of a military academy. A joint military academy brings young men together in their formative years, the beginning years of Service life. They can start to understand that it is not just the Air Force, the Navy or the Army, but the combined efforts of all three Services that make a commitment to a defence force and to the defence of this nation. They then understand the needs of each other, the concerns of each other and how people in one Service will be dependent upon another. They understand their obligations to assist and the way in which the three Services will be integrated. Those who have argued for a joint Service academy have done so on the basis that it is much better to learn this in the formative stages of a young officer’s education than on a battlefield in some distant land. That is the philosophy of it. There can be much argument about the way that that philosophy is carried out and about the best way of achieving a joint military academy. The fact that there ought to be a joint military academy has been supported by all chiefs of staff over a period of between 10 and 14 years. The fact that the most senior officers in the Services over a long period of years have supported the concept ought to be noted by those who might oppose it. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question.

page 206

MURRAY VALLEY SALINITY AND DRAINAGE REPORT

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade and Resources · Richmond · NCP/NP

-For the information of honourable members I present the Murray Valley Salinity and Drainage Report 1979. This report was distributed to honourable members during the recess.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

page 206

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO NEWSOUTH WALES AND VICTORIA

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade and Resources · Richmond · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present an agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to New South Wales and Victoria for urban expansion and redevelopment of the Albury-Wodonga development 1979-80.

page 206

AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING COUNCIL

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · Flinders · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Australian Manufacturing Council 1978-79.

page 206

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VETERANS’ RESIDENCES TRUST

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– Pursuant to sections 10 and 10A of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Act 1953, 1 present the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Trust annual report and the associated Auditor-General’s report for the year ended 30 June 1979.

page 206

APPLIED ECOLOGY PTY LTD

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the sixth annual report of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd 1 978-79.

page 206

EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a report entitled Employment Prospects by Industry and Occupation 1979’. This report was distributed to honourable members during the recess.

page 206

PAROLE BOARD OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the second annual report of the Parole Board of the Australian Capital Territory 1978-79.

page 207

ABORIGINAL LAND FUND COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Aboriginal Land Fund Act 1 974 I present the annual report of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission 1978-79.

page 207

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY

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

– Pursuant to section 33 of the Criminology Research Act 1 97 1 I present the seventh annual report of the operations of the Australian Institute of Criminology 1979.

page 207

ABORIGINAL LAND COMMISSIONER

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

– Pursuant to section 61 (3) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 I present the annual report of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner for the year ended 30 June 1 979.

page 207

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND OCCUPATION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the fifth annual report of the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation 1977-78. This report was distributed to honourable members during the recess.

page 207

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMISSION

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Transport · Gwydir · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 41 of the Australian National Railways Act 19171 present the annual report of the Australian National Railways Commission 1977-78. This report was distributed to honourable members during the recess.

page 207

NATIONAL RAILWAY NETWORK

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Transport · Gwydir · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 7 of the National Railway Network (Financial Assistance) Act 1979 1 present the agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland, dated 15 November 1979, for the purpose of funding the development of facilities at the Acacia Ridge rail freight terminal and the installation of centralised traffic control between Caboolture and Gympie.

page 207

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Report on Processed Food Industry

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Prices Justification Tribunal on the processed food industry 1979.

page 207

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Interim Report on Passenger Motor Vehicles and Components

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission on passenger motor vehicles and components- export facilitation. This report was distributed to honourable members during the recess.

page 207

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Report on Coated Copying Film

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on coated copying film. This report was distributed to honourable members during the recess.

page 207

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Report on Baby Carriages and Parts Therefor

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on baby carriages and parts therefor. This report was distributed to honourable members during the recess.

page 207

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Reports on Ships, Boats and Other Vessels

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I present the reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on ships, boats and other vessels not exceeding 6,000 tonnes dated 1979.

page 208

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Report on the Publishing Industry

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the publishing industry 1979. This report was distributed to honourable members during the recess.

page 208

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Report on Short Term Assistance to Certain Bits of Cemented Carbides

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I present the report by the Industries Assistance Commission on short term assistance to certain bits of cemented carbides.

page 208

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Report on Certain Engines

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on certain engines not exceeding 6.46 kW; rotary cultivators; and tractors having a power of less than 15 kW. This report has been distributed to honourable members during the recess.

page 208

TRADE PRACTICES CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

Report on Small Business and the Trade Practices Act

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I present volumes 1 and 2 of the Trade Practices Consultative Committee report on small business and the Trade Practices Act.

Motion (by Mr Viner)- by leave- agreed to:

  1. That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the papers, and
  2. That the papers be printed.

page 208

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands 1978-79. The report was distributed to honourable members during the recess.

page 208

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY FIRE BRIGADE

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 14 of the Fire Brigade Administration Ordinance I present the fifth annual report of the ACT Fire Brigade 1978-79. The report was distributed to honourable members during the recess.

page 208

CHRISTMAS ISLAND

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of Christmas Island 1978-79. The report was distributed to honourable members during the recess.

page 208

NORFOLK ISLAND

Mr ELLICOTT (Wentworth-Minister for

Home Affairs)- For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of Norfolk Island 1978-79. The report was distributed to honourable members during the recess.

page 208

NATIONAL FITNESS IN AUSTRALIA

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Fitness Act 1941 I present a report entitled ‘National Fitness in Australia 1 978-79’.

page 208

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr YOUNG:

– Yes, I do. During Question Time the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) said that during a recent visit to Western Australia I had denigrated that was the term he used the job opportunities that might arise from the mineral and associated industries which will develop in Western Australia during the 1980s. I did no such thing. During the trip to Western Australia I had occasion to speak to the industrial relations seminar. I went to the State electorate of Murdoch and spoke to some 50 or 60 young unemployed people in that electorate. That part of Perth has the highest youth unemployment in Australia. I also spoke to the Press about my views on employment and unemployment, not just in Western Australia but in Australia. I have never denigrated job opportunities arising out of any industry, but I do believe that all Australians, whether they are working or whether they are unemployed, are entitled to be told the truth.

The truth is that in Western Australia, in spite of the announcements being made about the amount of development that will take place in that State over the next five or six years, there is no chance that the people who are unemployed at the moment, let alone those who will leave school and who will be unable to find work over the next five or six years, will be able to find jobs in industries that will be developed over the next five or six years. I said that in Western Australia. I said that it was false to claim, as Mr Viner has done so often and as Sir Charles Court is now doing, that this was going to bring about some sort of miracle whereby all Western Australians would find jobs.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is now debating the matter.

Mr YOUNG:

– May I just conclude with this point. Western Australia is in dire straits as far as employment is concerned.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is now debating the matter. I ask him to resume his seat.

Mr YOUNG:

– Every member of this national Parliament ought to be concerned about it and we ought to tell the young people of Western Australia the truth. Mr Viner will not do it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat. I warn the honourable member for Port Adelaide that if he continues to speak despite my request that he cease and resume his seat I will take action against him without further warning.

Mr Hodgman:

– He is just a golliwog.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Denison will remain silent and not interject in that fashion when I am dealing with an honourable member; otherwise he also will be dealt with immediately.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– Yes. In today’s Australian there is a story on the front page headed ‘Labor split on boycott’. It states:

The Federal Opposition front bench is divided over its strategy of opposing the Government’s move to boycott the Moscow Olympics.

May I repeat what I said in the House on 19 February as reported on page 71 of Hansard. I said:

I state quite firmly that I support an effective boycott of the Olympic Games and always have done so.

This is exactly the proposition that has been put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) on many occasions. We are in favour of an effective boycott. If the boycott is not effective it plays into the hands of the Soviet Union. I quoted, at some length, Peter Hastings’ article in the Sydney Morning Herald last Saturday where he said:

Mr Fraser is right to say, as he did on Wednesday night, that the Soviet Union will regard the Games being held in Moscow as a vindication of Russian policies.

Unfortunately, we have helped create that situation.

I went out of my way to emphasise that last point. It is quite obvious that that is the position taken by the Federal Opposition, that we would support an effective boycott. We wish to do things to indicate to the Soviet Union that we disapprove of its policies in Afghanistan. It is quite ridiculous to suggest that there is any disagreement in the Federal Opposition or on the front bench of the Federal Opposition on this particular issue.

page 209

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-I inform the House that on 1 4 January I presented a gavel from the Commonwealth Parliament to the European Parliament and extended a formal invitation from this Parliament for the European Parliament to send a delegation to Australia during 1 980.

page 209

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

– by leave- I move:

I do so to allow my colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) to dispel any speculation which might otherwise arise.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The Opposition is happy to support this motion. We are glad that the Government has seen reason and has not eliminated all matters of public importance other than the question of Afghanistan. We agree that the Afghanistan question is of importance, but there are others. We are glad that it has agreed that there are other matters that should be brought before this national Parliament in this first week after a recess of about three months. In other words, the Opposition has won its way. We had to seek to have Standing Orders suspended yesterday in order to bring on a matter yesterday. We are glad that, through the media, that drew the attention of the people of this country to what this Government is doing. It is seeking to use the Afghanistan issue for political purposes and suggesting that the economy of this country is not an issue. It is a grave issue that we bring before the House again today. We would have liked the issue to have been brought up in addition to the matter for General Business Thursday No. 12, which is also in my name; namely, the matter of small business. But the Government has seen fit not to do that. I have been given assurances, and I would like the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) to acknowledge by nodding that the matter for General Business Thursday No. 12 will indeed be postponed and will come before the -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I interrupt the honourable member for Adelaide. I suggest that the Leader of the House say yes rather than nod.

Mr HURFORD:

– I was going to put into the record the fact that he was nodding in agreement. That will satisfy me. That fact that I want to make quite clear is that small business also is of extreme importance to the Opposition. We would have liked to have debated that today, particularly as it is a large issue that is being promoted by the Labor Opposition in the Western Australian elections. It would have suited us very well to have highlighted that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, Mr Mai Brice, and others have a very well thought through policy for assisting small business in that State, but that is not to be. I acknowledge now that that matter will come before this Parliament in two weeks’ time. To summarise, we are glad that we are at least able to debate in this Parliament at this time the dire straits of the motor vehicle industry.

Mr VINER (Stirling-Leader of the House)- Mr Speaker, with your indulgence perhaps, rather than nod, I should say that a mutually satisfactory arrangement has been reached between the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) and me concerning the conduct of business today.

Mr YATES:
Holt

– I rise to support the motion proposed to the House. The motor industry is a most important industry for thousands of my electors. My electorate of Holt contains the production plant of the Commodore of General Motors-Holden’s Ltd. In addition, my electorate has the most advanced and most modern lorry and heavy vehicle plant in production, at International Harvester Australia Ltd. So far both companies have been agreeably helped by the Government in their propositions for the industry. Therefore, I support the whole concept of this debate taking place as it is of real interest -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– How many speakers will you allow?

Mr YATES:

-I think I am entitled to speak on behalf of my electorate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to interject. The honourable member for Holt has misunderstood the interjection. The honourable member for Holt will proceed with his argument.

Mr YATES:

-If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition tries to be funny about the security of employment in my electorate -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Holt will continue with his point. That was not the purpose of the interjection by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Bourchier:

– I take a point of order. In fairness to the other people who may wish to speak on this matter, I submit that the honourable member for Holt is not speaking to the motion. The motion is to do away with General Business and to bring on the matter of public importance. The honourable member is speaking to that motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The point of order of the honourable member for Bendigo is quite correct. I ask the honourable member for Holt to remain relevant to the motion.

Mr YATES:

– As I understand it, the motion is that we will, without delay, debate now the whole concept of the motor industry. Therefore, I was rising in my place to say that I supported this motion and, secondly, I was giving reasons why I supported the motion. I contend that those two facts are absolutely in order and I intend to proceed to say why I want this debate to come on. Far too often the front bench makes arrangements with which we do not agree. This motion is one that I thoroughly support and I hope to take part in the debate because the issue seriously affects all the people in my electorate. I am grateful to the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 210

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Fraser Government to respond to the present grave difficulties of the Australian motor vehicle industry.

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 HURFORD:
Adelaide

-The motor vehicle industry in Australia is in a state of depression and crisis.

Mr Chapman:

– It is not.

Mr HURFORD:

– Sales of locally produced vehicles have slumped.

Mr Chapman:

– Rubbish!

Mr HURFORD:

-Unsold stocks are rapidly expanding, and production has taken a sharp dive. In marked contrast to the Government’s attempts to picture the Australian economy as entering a strong recovery phase, the motor vehicle industry is now experiencing a very serious decline. The failure of the Government to take effective steps to remedy the situation suggests that it has become a victim of its own rhetoric. Of course, its own rhetoric is to suggest that recovery is on the way, or around the corner. Indeed, in some cases the Government is even rash enough to say that it is here. But the latest reports from this industry, which is the motor of the whole of our manufacturing industry, are a tale of woe. Chrysler Australia Ltd has begun sacking 270 workers in Adelaide. It would seem that the sacking of those 270 workers- some say 300- is of no concern to the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) in whose electorate many of these workers live. By some inane interjections he has just suggested that the industry itself is not in decline.

Mr Chapman:

– I take a point of order.

Mr HURFORD:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, you know that this will be a frivolous point of order. I hope that it will be dealt with accordingly.

Mr Chapman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! This is not an appropriate time to seek to make a personal explanation. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr HURFORD:

-The honourable member for Kingston not only is irresponsible but also is flouting the normal Standing Orders of this House in interrupting this debate. The latest reports from the industry are a tale of woe. The Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd is contemplating retrenchments of many workers. General Motors-Holden’s Ltd and Ford have thousands of their products stockpiled at their factories. Of course, they are now offering a reduction in price in order to get rid of the stocks that they have on hand. The latest production figures for the industry show that in the December quarter of 1979, on a seasonally adjusted basis, the level of production of vehicles in Australia fell sharply from 119,200 to 109,100.

There are three primary reasons for the slump in the motor vehicle industry. Firstly, the Government’s budgetary and monetary policies have continued to be as restrictive as any in a comparable country. They have not enabled the general level of economic activity to expand. To use the words of a Liberal who used to sit in this Parliament, Billy Wentworth, ‘the Government is seeking salvation through stagnation’. Through deliberate policies of keeping a lid on the economy, the Government is seeking to arrive at salvation. After four years of the Fraser Government, this is not working. Some of the results are a serious decline in the level of production in the motor vehicle industry and the throwing of men out of work in that industry.

Secondly, the Government has pursued high tax policies, particularly in the area of income tax, where the surcharge and the failure to index tax rates have led to a major reduction in household disposable income. In the area of petrol taxes the Government is now hitting the householder even harder than before. Massive increases in petrol taxation, following the illconceived import parity pricing policy of this Government, have eliminated any benefit of the belated ending of the tax surcharge and are clearly responsible for much of the bad news of the past three months. We sought to raise this question in the Parliament yesterday. ‘ The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), who is in the House right now, was here at the appropriate time yesterday seeking to bring up as a matter of public importance the matter of tax reform and returning to the people in the form of tax rebates some of the $400m to $600m taken out of Australian pockets through the petrol bowser. That would have helped the motor industry. It would have meant more disposable income for Australians generally in order to get industry going again.

The third reason for the decline is that the motor industry is in a state of crisis because of the totally inept industry policies pursued by this Government, particularly at the instigation of the present Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch). At least I can be thankful that he has come into the chamber to answer in this debate. All too often we have had the Government putting up back bench members to answer the points legitimately raised in this Parliament by the Opposition on behalf of the people of this country. However, we have the Minister here today to answer the charges I make about the sad decline in the motor industry and the sad effect that is having on thousands of workers.

Dealing with the bad industry policies of this Government, I refer to the unpredictable behaviour of the Government in its development, or indeed its destruction, of the motor vehicle industry. The industry in Australia has suffered a decline because of the lack of competitiveness with imports. This is the main result of the fragmentation that has been allowed to continue, with five companies all producing many different models in a very small Australian market. On overseas comparisons, the main reason for the industry’s uncompetitive position is its inability to achieve sufficient economies of scale. This is the result of the small size of the Australian market when compared with the markets of other motor vehicle producing countries, such as Japan and the United States. It is also the result of expensive components, due mainly to small production runs- a direct result of both the small market and too many models being produced. The Whitlam Labor Government had a plan to do something about this and commenced a program to achieve scale economies in the production of components. I am referring, of course, to the plan to place a four-cylinder engine plant at the Chrysler works at Lonsdale, which would have served not only Chrysler’s needs but also the needs of other motor manufacturing companies in this country.

When the Fraser Government came to power in November-December 1975 one of the first things it did, one of the many stupid things, was to scuttle that plan to rationalise the manufacture of component parts. No longer does Chrysler’s Lonsdale plant produce four-cylinder engines for the large number of motor body manufacturing companies, as it would have done under the Whitlam plan. In that atmosphere, not surprisingly the three smaller local producers have failed on some occasions to meet the local content rules. In the first half of 1979 the shortfall of those companies was 4.27 per cent for Chrysler, 4.23 per cent for Australian Motor Industries, which makes Toyota, and 2.0 1 per cent for the Nissan organisation. The Federation of Automotive Product Manufacturers has estimated, and this was given some publicity in the last couple of days, that the shortfalls in these manufacturers meeting their local content rules have reduced -Australian production by as much as $2 5 m and have involved a total employment loss of 1,600 workers.

The Government is not satisfied with this mismanagement. In recent months it has capitulated to pressure from one of the manufacturers and has thereby placed the whole of the industry in a state of uncertainty and an attitude of gloom. I refer to the Government’s announcement on the export complementation scheme. Contrary to the advice of the Industries Assistance Commission, the Government has announced that the export complementation scheme will be expanded progressively from 1 March 1982 until 1984. We first heard of the scheme when this Minister brought details to the Parliament. He gave us to understand that he would wait on the advice of the Industries Assistance Commission before he took these sorts of plunges. Contrary to his expectations, that advice was to be cautious, not to rush into this dangerous new era too hurriedly. The Government has not accepted that advice, and we have a situation where there are grave dangers to employment in the motor vehicle industry in Australia. It is instructive to look at the history of the development of the scheme in more detail. On 19 February last year the Minister announced:

Additional Plan by-law entitlements arising from export credits to be available on a dollar for dollar basis, initially to the extent of five local content percentage points in 1982, with subsequent increases to be determined after inquiry by the Industries Assistance Commission.

I emphasise the words ‘after inquiry by the Commission’. This was announced as an agreement made with GMH to secure a $2 10m motor engine plant. The IAC was sceptical of the plans, as I indicated earlier, and the real ability to achieve the objectives of rationalisation. It warned of disruption and advised that no increase beyond 5 per cent should be allowed until far more work was done on this export complementation scheme. What did the Government do? It rejected that advice. On 18 December 1979 the Minister announced that the scheme would go ahead- 5 per cent in 1982, 6W per cent in 1983 and Vh per cent in 1984.

The unavoidable effect of the export facilitation scheme will be to decrease the demand for Australian components by 7.5 per cent by 1984. To a large extent, these components are made by Australian component manufacturing companies employing Australians, whereas those who benefit will be overseas motor manufacturing companies. This will mean that once again the component industry within Australia will face a falling off in demand for its products, forcing rationalisation, so-called. Depending on how the export credit scheme is organised, the fall in demand could be greater than expected.

For the car manufacturers it will mean an opportunity to reduce the cost of their final products through lower cost components because the greater proportion of their components are imported under by-law. Some increase in demand for Austraiian components may result from GHM’s participation in the world car. However, this is virtually unquantifiable at the present time, which is why the IAC advocated caution. Further, it is unlikely to offset the 7.5 per cent fall in demand for Australian components, as we understand the situation at the present time.

The future of the component manufacturers is therefore clouded. I referred to them in a Press release earlier this month as belonging to the mushroom club because they have not been brought into the confidence of the Government to know what their future is. There are still too many suppliers in the market, we know and they know, and they are prepared to rationalise if they are given an opportunity to do so. Their competitiveness will depend upon their ability to import those components which are the least competitive by obtaining export credits and so on. I repeat that all of this is in the face of the advice of the IAC against a hurried introduction of the scheme in the way the Government is pursuing it. It is outrageous that the Government should move towards the rapid introduction of the complementation scheme when there are such grave dangers for the motor component industry in this country, when so much danger for the jobs of so many Australian workers results from the plan. Without any real knowledge of the effects of the scheme on employment and activity, the Government is nevertheless rushing ahead.

May I put this into perspective. All that we know so far is what will happen with the J car, one of the four models that GMH is producing. We know that in that case 300,000 engines will be produced in this country, 200,000 of which will be exported. We know and applaud that that will mean more employment for some in Melbourne and for others where GMH has given orders. We know that in the case of the J car the export credits will be used to phase out in-house production where GMH was making components for itself. It is not satisfactory to base the whole of this scheme on one of four models relating to one company. What about the other three models that GMH will make under this export credits scheme? What about the future plans of Chrysler, of Nissan, of Toyota, of Ford? What effects are their plans going to have when they use export credits to import into this country components which have hitherto been made by Australian motor component manufacturing companies? Those companies are Australian owned, unlike the five major manufacturers which are deriving advantage from this scheme. I say again -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · Flinders · LP

– Let me begin by pointing out that today the Opposition has treated us to a textbook example of one of its more notorious traits, and that is its penchant for sacrificing the national interests in pursuit of political expediency. The motor vehicle industry is currently experiencing a significant softening of the market- a regrettable circumstance, although the record shows that it is not an unusual one. But few actions could be more prejudicial to the prospects of this industry than the step which the Opposition has taken in this national Parliament. This motion has the potential to undermine consumer confidence, which of course is the very life-blood of the vehicle industry. Obviously, the Opposition has decided to pursue its party political objectives at the expense of the very group which it claims that it seeks to defend- the employees of the Australian motor vehicle industry.

It would be well known to this House that the motor vehicle industry world-wide is characterised by alternate peaks and troughs. Indeed, we do not have to go too far back in history to recall that in 1975 the Labor Government was so alarmed by a collapse in the new vehicle market- a collapse largely brought about by its own economic incompetence- that it resorted then to a temporary decrease in the sales tax on new passenger cars. In a fine example of Labor’s hotchpotch of economic policies’, to use that memorable phrase of Premier Wran, the Labor Government took a step which fundamentally and severely destabilised the new and used car markets. Despite the convincing evidence from its own history in government of the damage that can be done by ad hoc temporary changes in sales tax, the Labor Party now wants to repeat that mistake.

That blunder pales into insignificance beside a more basic misapprehension which I have seen reported in some sections of the media and that is the simplistic assertion that the highly complex new car market is affected in a dominant fashion by the Government’s policy on oil pricing. The facts are these: Firstly, the vehicle industry is having problems at present in a number of countries, perhaps most severely in the United States, one of the only two developed countries which have petrol prices significantly below those of Australia. In point of fact, we currently pay around 15 per cent more for our petrol than they do. The United Kingdom automotive market reached an all time high in 1979 although its petrol costs are 70 per cent more than ours. Japanese domestic automobile sales were also up last year. Its prices are 90 per cent above Australia’s. I think, therefore, that it will be clear to honourable members that simplistic assertions seeking to draw a nexus of cause and effect in explaining the downturn in the car market need to be seen in context, because a range of factors are directly involved. The true situation is far more complex.

An accurate explanation of what is taking place in the world automotive industry clearly needs to include the following factors. The international oil scene has come to be characterised by uncertainty- uncertainty as to the amount of oil to be produced; the internal stability of some of the producing countries and the political conditions under which it will be supplied. Most recently, these difficulties have been compounded by the situation regarding the hostages in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. World markets for precious metals and commodities are in turmoil. Significant stock market adjustments are taking place. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that in many countries the vehicle market is also affected, partly because purchasers of consumer durables are traditionally deferred in times of economic uncertainty and partly because of public apprehension regarding future trends in international oil markets, a factor which is obviously of some importance to the motorist. To these major influences on the vehicle market can be added some other significant developments.

In Australia, as elsewhere in the world, one of the most important factors in recent years has been the shift in consumer preference toward four-cylinder cars. In 1973, less than 40 per cent of new cars sold in this country were fourcylinder. By 1975 this proportion had grown to 50 per cent. In 1979, following the introduction of import parity oil pricing it was 57 per cent. It was not, as the Opposition would have us believe, an instantaneous and unexpected change, but rather a continuous one which had been taking place over six years. Certainly, the six and eight-cylinder cars won a respite during the first pan of 1979 when the Commodore and the XD

Falcon were released. Obviously, the Government’s oil pricing policy did not prevent this from happening, despite the Opposition’s assertions regarding its effects. Despite this event, which I believe attests to the local industry’s achievement in producing these advanced and competitive new models, the long term trend towards smaller, more fuel efficient cars, was never in doubt. In a world where oil reserves are being consumed ever more rapidly and oil is becoming progressively more expensive, the need for more fuel efficient vehicles is, of course, evident. All over the world that fact is being recognised.

In Australia, with our present 70 per cent selfsufficiency in oil we would theoretically have the option of living in a fool’s paradise for a few years before reality caught up with us but the crunch would be that much more severe when it came. The time to become energy conscious is now, not after we have squandered our irreplacable oil reserves, but now while there is still time to conserve them, to expand them through accelerated exploration and to stretch them by greater use of substitute fuels. I do not suggest that the shift towards greater fuel economy is without its difficulties or that the motor industry ‘s collective expertise is not taxed by this trend. The problem which has now arisen is a classic one of a market shift which was not fully anticipated by the industry. History contains many such events. No doubt the current instance will not be the last.

Developments of this type are not normally corrected by short term government assistance. The Government acted in 1978 to reduce the sales tax on passenger cars from 2Vh per cent to 15 per cent. A further decrease would significantly exacerbate the uncertainties which already affect the market. Used car prices would automatically slump further. In the meantime, public speculation on the possibility of such a move is adversely affecting market prospects. I repeat: The Government very firmly and unequivocally rejects this proposition and I say to the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) that I hope that in a spirit of bipartisanship concerning the needs of the industry, he and his colleagues will desist from seeking to create further public speculation about the possibility of sales tax reductions. If the honourable gentleman is saying -

Mr Hurford:

– I did not mention it in my speech.

Mr LYNCH:

-Well, I am referring to other of the honourable member’s more notorious, less responsible colleagues, including the honourable gentleman whose place he has recently taken as Manager of Opposition Business. No decrease in new vehicle sales tax, either temporary or permanent, is under consideration. So far as increased protection is concerned, I emphasise that existing policy reserves about 80 per cent of the Australian car market to local producers. The local industry, as a result of this policy and its own efforts, has been able to increase its market share in each of the last two years

The Government’s long term policy for the passenger vehicle industry is directed towards a gradual restructuring and increasing internal and international competitiveness. Australian standards of technology, efficiency and competitiveness must be brought to progressively higher levels. Vehicle manufacturing is an international business and a country of 14 million inhabitants cannot alone support a modern industry in complete isolation from other nations. Indeed, this fact is being recognised by more and more vehicle producers as the world car concept gains international acceptance. For many years our small market has been forced to accept the burden of supporting an industry that is too small to achieve the necessary economies of scale. Long production runs have been required to amortise the cost of tooling for unique local models, models which consumers often regarded as lagging well behind overseas trends by the time they were replaced. Such vehicles have difficulty in competing with imports from countries which have the advantage of access to higher production volumes. As a result, our passenger motor vehicle industry is one of the most highly protected of our major manufacturing industries.

The only way in which the Australian industry can move in the interest of its future health and viability is to respond to the quickening pace of international developments in motor vehicle production and design. This requires the local industry to become more integrated with the world industry and to develop much greater export induced activity. The alternative is deliberately to turn into a marketing and technologically blind alley. Our industry would be cut off from international trends. It would have no choice but to make progressively more expensive cars, which would be increasingly out of date by overseas standards. The result would be falling sales and employment. The Government considers that such a development can and must be averted.

It is for that reason that we announced on 22 February 1979 that export facilitation measures would be introduced in the Motor Vehicle Plan.

These will take effect in March 1982 at a level of 5 percentage points and increase in 1984 to 7y percentage points. In that context, of course, it is useful to observe that the industry has ample warning of the policies that will be in place at that time. Export facilitation will enable the Australian vehicle industry to take its place in the mainstream of international industry. Plans have already been announced to export engines from Australia for installation in vehicles to be sold in Europe. I would have thought that, to the honourable gentleman and his colleagues, it would be a source of very real satisfaction and a matter for encouragement that this country now has the capacity to make significant export sales into Europe. That is a remarkable tribute to the turnabout which has taken place in the stability of the Australian economy. The prospect of exporting into Europe represents the beginning of a major step in the development of the Australian vehicle industry, one which opens up opportunities for Australia to become a significant exporter of the newest and latest technology in autmotive components. At the same time, it will help to provide access for Australians to modern Australian-made high quality, fuel efficient vehicles at prices that they can afford to pay. It is the only step that will enhance employment prospects in the industry. The alternative is a bleak and sombre inward-looking view and policy approach which certainly cannot, in any direct way, answer the difficulties that the industry has had in recent years.

I do not believe that the Opposition does the country any service by seeking to divert the debate to issues which, clearly, have limited relevance to the present state of the industry and even less to its long-term interests. The Government very firmly rejects this motion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The discussion is concluded.

page 215

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr CHAPMAN:

– I do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-At the outset of his remarks on this matter of public importance concerning the motor vehicle industry the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) indicated that I was not interested in the industry and had no care for it.

Mr Hurford:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, that is just not true.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Kingston is reminded that the opportunity to make a personal explanation on the score of having been misrepresented applies only where there can be specific identification of a statement, made in a prior speech, which so misrepresents him. The honourable member is not free to engage in debate on a broad basis on the subject that has been under discussion.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-The honourable member for Adelaide referred specifically to me in his remarks.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member may proceed to make a personal explanation concerning the statements by the honourable member for Adelaide which in fact misrepresented him.

Mr CHAPMAN:

-Contrary to what the honourable member for Adelaide stated, I have in fact engaged in regular consultations with manufacturers and dealers in the industry. I have often raised issues concerning the industry in this House and, in fact, do keep up with research on the situation in the industry. This has been recognised in the past by the honourable member for Adelaide in the course of statements made in this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will proceed quickly to the point on which he claims to have been misrepresented.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– It is that at the outset of his remarks the honourable member for Adelaide indicated that I had not taken an interest in the industry. That was the misrepresentation.

Mr Lynch:

– With the leave of the House I would like to say that the honourable gentleman is one of the most effective representatives on the needs of this industry that I know of anywhere in Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman does not have the leave of the House.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HURFORD:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr HURFORD:

– I was misrepresented by the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Chapman) when he claimed that in the course of my remarks I said that he was not interested in this industry. I said no such thing. In fact, I am on record as calling him the member for not only Kingston but also the Chrysler bosses. I know that he takes an interest in the industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has made his point.

Mr HURFORD:

– I go further and say that in the course of my remarks, when I was noting that the industry is in decline and that the Government is not doing sufficient about it, the honourable member was interjecting and saying that this is not so. That is when I turned on him and complained that he was not recognising, as the Australian Labor Party recognises, that not only this industry but also the whole economy of the country is in decline.

page 216

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Mr Eric Robinson)- by leave- agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent-

1 ) Government Business taking precedence of General Business today; and

The business listed for General Business Thursday No. 12 taking precedence on the Notice Paper on the next General Business Thursday.

page 216

EFFECT OF AGENT ORANGE ON VIETNAM VETERANS

Ministerial Statement

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Fisher · NCP/NP

– by leave- Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the House while I make a statement on a matter which has created a good deal of public interest since the House rose at the end of the Budget sittings last year. I refer to claims by some Australian veterans of the war in Vietnam that contact with herbicides, particularly agent orange, during their service in Vietnam has caused disabilities in themselves and abnormalities in their children.

Agent orange was one of the herbicides mixtures used in the Vietnam war between 1962 and 1971 by United States forces for the purpose of denying enemy forces the cover of dense jungle foliage and to destroy their food crops. It was called agent orange because of the orange identification ring on the containers in which it was carried. Other herbicides used in Vietnam had code names such as agent white, agent purple, agent green, agent pink and agent blue, but these were not used as widely as agent orange. Agent orange was a mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. The component 2,4,5-T contains an impurity, one of a group of toxic substances known as dioxins.

It has been claimed that exposure to agent orange and other herbicides in Vietnam has affected the health of Defence personnel who served there. Health problems which have been mentioned include fatigue, skin rashes, diminished sexual drive, cancer, liver damage, psychological problems and birth defects in offspring. Others who have no symptoms fear that health problems might develop in the future.

In the first half of last year, reference was made to herbicide exposure as a possible cause of disabilities by a few Australian veterans making a claim on my Department, but as recently as early December of last year we had received only a handful of such claims. By the end of December, 20 claims mentioning herbicides had been received by the Department. By the end of last week, following the recent extensive media coverage, 149 claims had been received. The independent repatriation boards which determine eligibility have decided 13 of these claims but, to date, in none has it been accepted that the disability is due to contact with herbicides. Some disabilities have been accepted as related to service on other grounds. I might also mention that the United States Veterans Administration, to the end of November last year, had received some 750 claims relating to herbicide exposure from a Vietnam veteran population of 2.6 million. Only two were accepted as due to contact with herbicides, and these were for a skin condition called chloracne which has been linked to dioxin. Some claims have been granted for other reasons.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me clearly state the principles which govern the provision of compensation and medical care for Australian veterans and their dependants for incapacity or death related to their war service. The repatriation legislation covers all veterans of all wars for any disabilities which may be related to their service. The access to compensation provided is generous by any standard, as the major exservice organisations agree. However, under these principles there must be a logical basis for a presumption that a given disability is related to a veteran’s military service.

It should be understood, Mr Deputy Speaker, that various overseas studies thus far have produced no confirmation that disabilities reported by veterans are due to exposure to herbicides. The United States National Academy of Sciences in 1974 reported after an extensive follow-up study of the effects of herbicides in Vietnam that there is no evidence of long term health effects in humans from the use of herbicides in Vietnam. Whilst there is no conclusive scientific evidence at this time that any of the conditions, except chloracne, reported by veterans and deformities in their children are related to any of the chemical components of agent orange or other herbicides used in Vietnam, we are actively seeking out the facts.

In view of the growing concern of the Australian veteran community, I decided that the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine at the University of Sydney should be asked whether an independent study could establish whether contact with agent orange could have caused the disabilities and deformities reported by Australian veterans. There has been some public criticism of the choice of this research body to undertake this study. Some persons have said that the School should not have been chosen, because its staff are public servants employed by the Commonwealth. The fact that the staff of the School are employed by the Commonwealth has no bearing on the matter. Any study done by any suitable body would have to be paid for by the Commonwealth. Also, I have been assured that although the School is administratively under the control of the Commonwealth Department of Health, it is completely independent academically as to the nature and the conduct of its investigations.

Also, there appears to be some public misunderstanding of the nature of this proposed study. It would be a scientific study, the basic purpose of which would be to gather medical statistics from which valid conclusions could be drawn. It would not be a public inquiry such as a royal commission to which people made submissions. For this reason the School will not be seeking such submissions in relation to its proposed study. However, interested persons and organisations are welcome to put to me or my Department any submissions which they feel may help in resolving this complex matter.

I have now received from the School an outline plan for a study of the possible adverse effects on the health of Australian veterans and their children of the herbicide agent orange and other chemicals used in Vietnam. Broadly, the plan provides for three groups of veterans to be studied, namely: Australian veterans who were in Vietnam and were exposed to agent orange and perhaps other herbicides of significance; Australian veterans who were in Vietnam but were not judged to be exposed to the chemical but perhaps exposed to other environmental hazards; and a matched comparable group of Australian veterans who did not go to Vietnam and were not exposed to any of the chemicals used there.

The three groups would be compared to see whether there were: Differences in the incidence of defined illness in the veterans themselves; differences in the incidence of certain genetic defects in their offspring compared with the control group; and differences in the incidence of birth defects in their offspring and the incidence of abortion in their wives.

The School has indicated that it would be necessary to interview a very large number of veterans and their children in all States. For the purposes of the study as proposed by the School, information on the veterans and units which served in Vietnam, the use of herbicides by Australian and United States forces by specific geographical area and time, medical records of servicemen, the present addresses of the persons involved, certain statistical data such as that recorded by the State Registrars-General of Births and Deaths, and medical information from private practitioners and State medical services, would need to be available to the School.

The School also proposes that there should be an external monitoring of the conduct of the study. This would include publishing the methodology in such a way that it is available for criticism by relevant authorities and establishing a scientific review committee of three or four nominated independent persons. Indeed, the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Burns), in his notice of motion yesterday morning, proposed a very similar monitoring procedure.

I would comment on this initial advice by saying that the study which the School has proposed would obviously be a massive task. There are a number of basic conditions to be met before any actual study can commence. The co-operation of a number of government authorities will need to be assured and access obtained to a wide range of information in Australia and overseas. That is a short outline of the School ‘s responsibility.

Now, I wish to mention the other positive actions which we have taken in this matter. A committee of Ministers has been established to report to the Government on matters relating to the study of possible health effects of exposure to herbicides in Vietnam. This committee, comprising the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) and myself, will be supported by a committee of officials from the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Defence, Health and Veterans’ Affairs. An immediate task of the committee of officials will be to examine the proposals of the School and to provide advice to the committee of Ministers. The Government will need to be sure that the basic criteria of the study can be met and that it will produce a valid outcome.

I can now add that as a result of preliminary considerations yesterday and this morning of the report of the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine by the committee of officials there will be consultations between the School and the Australian Department of Defence to ascertain whether the information essential to the proposed study can be gathered. Following these consultations there will be a need for further discussions with the School to assess the usefulness and value of the study in being able to establish positively whether there is any link between the conditions claimed by the Vietnam veterans and exposure to herbicides in Vietnam. When these discussions have been held and more information is obtained about a number of current United States studies to which I shall refer shortly, then and only then will the Government be in a position to evaluate the proposal and to make a definitive response on the course it should take in relation to the study proposed by the School.

In line with established practice concerning important matters affecting the welfare of the veteran community, I will be consulting with the federal body of the Vietnam Veterans Action Association and the Returned Services League of Australia on the proposed study. I have already met the National President of the Vietnam Veterans Action Association and I have made it known to the Association that I am available for further talks as soon as it is ready. As I said earlier, my Department is continuing to seek information on the effects of herbicides on Vietnam veterans and, as I announced on 11 February, a member of the Repatriation Commission, Mr Keith Medbury, OBE, will go to Washington tomorrow to see at first hand what is being done and has been done by certain American agencies studying this question.

I would add that there are a number of continuing studies in the United States to determine what, if any, long term health effects might arise from exposure to agent orange and other herbicides. For example, the United States Air Force will conduct a detailed health study of some 1,200 servicemen and veterans who were exposed as handlers of agent orange or who flew spraying missions. The data gathered on this group will be compared with that for a larger control group not exposed to herbicides. The United States Veterans Administration is also undertaking an epidemiological study of ground troops who served in Vietnam. In addition to these studies, there are several laboratory studies dealing with the chemistry, bio-chemistry, pharmacology and toxicology of dioxin and related compounds and epidemiological studies of industrial workers subjected to chronic herbicide exposure.

Apart from the study proposed by the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, my Department is collecting information from Australian veterans who report disabilities which they believe may be due to exposure to herbicides in Vietnam. Although no claims in relation to herbicides have been accepted so far by the Repatriation Boards, should any study reveal such a connection, all rejected claims will be reviewed. If it is established that there is a connection between birth defects in the children of veterans and exposure to herbicides in Vietnam, the Government will take appropriate action. I am sure that the House will agree that in this matter of agent orange or any other chemicals which may have affected the health of our Vietnam veterans and their children, the Government has acted swiftly, decisively and responsibly. I will report to the House on further steps and progressive achievements as they arise.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-by leave-I welcome the fact that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) has made this statement to the House. I would disagree with him on his concluding statement that the Government has acted swiftly, decisively and responsibly. I disagree especially with the use of the word swiftly’. Before I became a member of this House I was a general practitioner and a repatriation medical officer. In other words, I was the local medical officer for people who had accepted disabilities. It is often difficult to appreciate just how difficult it is for the average exserviceman, whether he served in Vietnam or generally, to establish a rational medical and legal case so as to entitle him to his due. It is all very well for those who have specialist training or who are members of parliament to present a reasonable case based on something that happened to an ex-serviceman during war service, but it is not easy for the average ex-serviceman to do so.

I am sure that other members of this House have had instances of ex-servicemen and their widows presenting cases which should have been presented earlier and it is difficult to appreciate why they have not done so. Being interested in repatriation and in ensuring that the persons concerned are given a fair go, I have sometimes found that people with the least obvious disabilities but with plenty of ability to present caseswhat are often termed bush lawyers- have done extremely well with claims to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and that many people who do not come within that category have not done very well at all. A chronological link has to be established between the time of service in a war and the lodgment of a claim. That is often difficult for people who have ignored their symptoms or have not thought about them and who have suddenly become ill 20 or 30 years later and to whom their doctor says: ‘You might be able to put in a claim ‘.

Another general point that I wish to raise before I get on to the specific issue, and it is applicable to this matter, is that difficulty is often experienced by ex-servicemen in getting appropriate professional advice. Unless an exserviceman has a doctor who is prepared to spend a significant amount of time going through his medical history in the service and trying to link the present symptoms or condition with his war service, it is very difficult for him to prove any sort of connection. The Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs has at its disposal able medical officers who comment on the cases put by exservicemen. The ex-servicemen often do not have that sort of person appearing for them. This is not intended as a criticism of the Australian Legal Aid Office or the many people in the Returned Services League of Australia, Legacy and so on who offer their services. The Department pays professional people to put the Department’s point of view but it pays no one to do the same for the ex-servicemen. I think that something ought to be done in that respect to help the ex-servicemen. To my mind it is terribly important that we, as compassionate individuals, as the people who represent the people of Australia, present the people who performed services for the country, often at great risk to their own lives, with all the facilities possible to enable them to be successful with their claims.

When the Opposition was in government, I was a member of a committee which dealt with this matter. I think that one of my greatest achievements in my 10 years in this Parliament- it may not seem very much to other people- was to be able to persuade the then Minister for Repatriation to introduce provisions requiring the reasons to be given for the disallowance of a claim by an ex-serviceman. In other words, today the ex-servicemen are told why their claims are being refused. Until this provision was introduced in about 1974-1 remember what happened from my days as a medical practitioner- the ex-serviceman was just told that his claim has failed. He was not told on what basis the claim had failed. It was therefore extremely difficult for him to present a better case on appeal. Now he is at least told what has been the argument by the departmental medical officers for the refusal of his claim. I think that is at least a step in the right direction.

Let me come now to the specific problem relating to agent orange. I think that what I have just said is important because it is at least eight years since Australian servicemen were involved with agent orange in Vietnam, yet relatively few people made claims or asked the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to recognise their claims until last year when publicity brought to the attention of certain ex-servicemen that some of their conditions may be related to their service in Vietnam and the particular tasks they performed while they were serving in Vietnam. The difficulty they have is that very little is known about the effects of dioxin, of agent orange. Hundreds of papers have been published on the subject but, in the end, that still does not prove much in relation to individual cases. The most important aspect, to my mind, is statistics. Obviously, I am therefore pleased that the persons who have been appointed by the Minister to investigate the problem at the School of Tropical Medicine and Public Health in Sydney agree with what I said in my statement some months ago, that the first thing we have to do is to conduct some sort of statistical study to see whether there is any significance in the effect of agent orange on individuals. I am also pleased that the Minister and the School have suggested that there should be external monitoring of the conduct of the study so that the methodology et cetera can be challenged by other people.

It is now very important for us to make provision for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to pay veterans or a veterans’ association- either as individuals or as a group- to have access to professional scientific advisers for their side of the case. It is relatively easy for them to get legal advice through the Legal Aid Office as far as their case against the Department is concerned, but there is no provision for them to obtain professional advice such as statistical and medical advice. Large numbers of special investigationsbiochemical, genetic and so on- have to be conducted for them. As I have said repeatedly, it is terribly important that we do not treat these people as adversaries. Again and again, the

Government seems to be treating our veterans in the same way as insurance companies treat people who put in claims; in other words, as adversaries. The person concerned is challenged to prove his case or at least to establish a prima facie case. These people went to Vietnam under our instructions. They served in Vietnam because the then Government decided that that was what ought to be done. Surely we have the responsibility to help them continually to prepare a case.

There are two aspects to the case. I notice that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs dealt mainly with the first aspect, that is, the position of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and an exserviceman who is entitled to certain benefits if he can show that his war service adversely affected his health. That is the first aspect. But I understand that a significant number of these veterans have also decided to take action against chemical companies in the United States because they supplied the chemicals to the United States and Australian armies. It is claimed that the manufacturers were legally at fault in not pointing out the dangers associated with the chemicals. What worries me is a statement made recently by a solicitor handling these cases, that the United States lawyers who are representing these veterans are asking for 30 per cent of the amount gained by the veterans, because that is the way it is done in the United States. The legal advisers in the United States may be excellent; they may be able to obtain large amounts of money for these people. Obviously, I cannot predict that. In turn, if they get 30 per cent, I think an amount of $US30 billion or $US40 billion is involved in the claim. It is not just the claims of our exservicemen, of course. Those lawyers will gain huge amounts of money.

That is not the practice in Australia and I am not necessarily arguing for or against our legal system or theirs. What worries me is that it may well be that if a lawyer in the United States handles 100 to 1,000 claims, in a sort of class action, and if the company concerned is not sure as to what the final verdict will be, it may decide to offer to settle those claims for, let us say, $10,000. If the lawyer receives 30 per cent of each of those claims he will get $3,000 out of each one of the claims. Our claimants will finish up with, let us say, $7,000 each, which is not a great amount of money if in fact there was significant negligence on the part of the company. Yet that lawyer will collect hundreds or thousands of times $3,000. 1 can see two honourable members on the Liberal Party side who belong to the legal profession regretting the fact that they are not practising in the United States. I hope that they can see the difficulty. The advice that the United States lawyers will give the Australian ex-servicemen who claim in that country may be based on their perception of settling 100 claims at $3,000 each, instead of settling individual claims in which the persons concerned might well have got much more than $ 10,000 or $7,000 net each. I think the Australian Government ought to look at the proposition and undertake, through the Australian Legal Aid Office or wherever, to pay the claimants’ legal costs and to engage Australian lawyers on the basis on which Australian lawyers are normally engaged to handle such cases, in other words, on the basis that they will not get a percentage of the amount gained by the men.

Another point that I would like to make in connection with that matter is that amongst the members of the committee which has been appointed by Cabinet, there are representatives from the departments of Health, Defence and Veterans’ Affairs, and I think the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is involved at a different level, but there is no representative from the Attorney-General’s Department. I think there ought to be somebody to give legal advice both on this issue and on the other issue, which may well become significant. If it is found that some of the congenital malformations are in fact a result of the use of agent orange, then the whole of the Repatriation Act will have to be changed. By that I mean that new categories of people will have to be deemed to be compensable. At present, even if it could be proved that a baby was born malformed as a result of the use of agent orange and that it had to have all kinds of medical attention for the rest of its life, there is no provision in the current Act for any payments to be made, because payments are made only to the ex-serviceman himself.

I think this is a huge problem. In some ways I deplore the publicity that has been associated with it. Members of the media have cashed in or have tried to cash in on the sensationalism of malformation in children. They have lined up large numbers of babies or children on television. They do not really care what happens to the children or to the parents. What they want to do is to present five or ten minutes of sensational television viewing. That is deplorable but obviously there is nothing we can do about it. I think that if it can be shown that children are born with malformations as a result of the use of agent orange, they are entitled to receive very great sums of money for the rest of their lives. Most importantly, I come back to the point that we must not treat the ex-servicemen as adversaries. We must treat them almost as we would treat members of our own families. If they have a claim we should help them in every possible way to obtain justice. That is the way in which it ought to be done.

In passing, I just mention one further point because it is a related point. I know that I have taken some time on this matter. I have been contacted by a Mr Eric Butler- not the well known Mr Eric Butler of the League of Rights, but the National Secretary of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force Association whose members served in Japan in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki areas of Japan in 1945-46. 1 have put a question on notice about this matter. A significant number of the Association’s ex-members claim that they were adversely affected by radiation which was still present in Japan when they were stationed there. I hope the Department will carry out the same sort of statistical study that it is now proposing for ex-servicemen who were in Vietnam, in the case of the people who served in the British Commonwealth Occupation Force or others of our ex-servicemen who were prisoners or whatever in Japan at the time. I hope the Department will carry out statistical surveys into the incidence of such disorders as carcinomas, sarcomas, leukaemias and other blood dyscrasias amongst these members and compare them with members of the general population. I hope that that will be done very urgently.

Many of these people are now reaching retiring age. They are in trouble from a physical point of view. I do hope that the Minister will, as a second point, ask the same people who are preparing the statistical information on the Vietnam veterans to provide us with the statistical information for these other people. The main argument that I have with the Minister is that it is terribly important that the committee, which will look at the methodology et cetera of the people carrying out the study for the Government, should have people on it representing those exservicemen and that all the data is made available to those ex-servicemen so that they are helped with any claims that they may be able to make against the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

Mr Holding:

– I seek leave to make a statement in respect of the statement of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann).

Leave not granted.

Mr Holding:

– That is pretty rough because I have a number of points to raise. Honourable members have a right to be heard in this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to put the question again because it seemed to me that it was possible that the objection was put in a fairly light hearted way. I am not sure that it ought necessarily be taken as a full rejection. I think the honourable member ought to be given an opportunity to put the case that he has.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has made his point. One dissentient voice has the effect of refusing leave. The Chair was under no illusions as to the attitude of the House.

page 222

QUESTION

AFGHANISTAN-INVASION BY SOVIET UNION

Debate resumed from 20 February, on motion by Mr Viner:

That this House-

1 ) condemns the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union as a gross violation of the United Nations Charter and of Afghanistan’s non-aligned status; as involving acts of aggression and tyranny; as having a critically destabilizing effect on the region; and as potentially the gravest threat to international peace and security since 194S:

notes that a significant majority of world opinion, including Islamic opinion, has viewed the invasion with grave concern- as expressed in resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on 14 January 1980 and at the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers on 29 January 1980;

calls for the immediate unconditional and total withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in order to enable that country to regain its sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and nonaligned status; and to permit its people to determine their own form of government free from external intervention, oppression, coercion or other constraint;

with a view to the furtherance of the aforementioned objectives, urges all independent-minded nations to take action separately or in concert to register with the Government and people of the Soviet Union, their abhorrence of the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, and

urges the provision of humanitarian relief assistance to alleviate the hardships of the Afghan refugees in co-ordination with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and calls for the attainment of conditions necessary to permit the voluntary return to their homes of the Afghan refugees.

Upon which Mr Hurford had moved by way of amendment:

That all words after ‘region’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following:

notes that a significant majority of world opinion, including Islamic opinion, has viewed the invasion with grave concern-as expressed in resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on 14 January 1980 and at the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers on 29 January 1980;

calls for the immediate unconditional and total withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in order to enable that country to regain its sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and nonaligned status; and to permit its people to determine their own form of government free from external intervention, oppression, coercion or other constraint;

with a view to the furtherance of the aforementioned objectives, urges all independent-minded nations to take action separately or in concert to register with the Government and people of the Soviet Union, their abhorrence of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan;

urges the provision of humanitarian relief assistance to alleviate the hardships of the Afghan refugees in co-ordination with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and calls for the attainment of conditions necessary to permit the voluntary return to their homes of the Afghan refugees;

views with extreme concern the possibility that strategic arms limitation may be abandoned and an uncontrolled arms race resumed;

urges the Government to recognise the serious problems which exist in Australia’s own region and which have a direct effect upon Australia and its future;

calls on the Government to take a diplomatic initiative directed at convening an international conference which would have the objective of demilitarising Kampuchea and allowing the people of that country to determine their own future, and

condemns the double standard applied by the Prime Minister in sanctions against the Soviet Union by harassing Australian athletes while permitting continued trade.’

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I certainly agree with the motion that is now before the House; that is, that the amendment should be agreed with. The House has spent some eight hours debating the matter of Afghanistan over the course of yesterday and the day before and it will spend some hours debating the matter today. It is worth mentioning that this is an important matter. Certainly nobody in the Australian Labor Party decries the importance of the issue, but the Labor Party is also very conscious that this is the start of the first session of the Parliament in 1 980 which happens to be an election year. The Labor Party is also very conscious of the shortcomings in the domestic economy. We know that we have massive unemployment which is showing no indication of declining. We know that we have rising inflation. We know that the cost of living is rising. We know that interest rates are bound to rise. The Treasurer (Mr Howard) agrees with that and says that he cannot do anything about it. We know that petrol prices are astronomical. They are artificially high because of the policies of this Government.

Knowing all those things it would be reasonable, I would think, to expect the Government to pay some attention to these matters that are having an effect on the people of Australia rather than whipping up hysteria about a set of circumstances some thousands of kilometres away which may have an effect on the Australian people. It would seem to me that the Government, as is usual, has its priorities wrong or else the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), knowing that he is in diabolical trouble at home, as the polls tell him, has gone on a gate crashing exercise around the world, embarrassing those he has visited. Obviously they did not want to invite him but he arrived on their doorsteps. Not only did he do that but then he had a second bite at the United States of America and was so effectual while he was doing this that meetings of very prominent statesmen around the world were organised. Prominent statesmen were invited and the prominent statesman, the Prime Minister of Australia, in inverted commas, was not invited. Obviously the whole thing is an exercise of cynicism to distract the minds of the Australian electorate away from the real problems that are besetting them.

The Prime Minister’s comments just do not ring true. I sat and listened to them, with other honourable members, when the statement was delivered. I was pretty confused when it was finished. I read the statement that had been handed around and was even more confused. I thought that if I had a good night’s sleep and read it in Ilansard the next day, what the Prime Minister was driving at would become apparent to me, but it did not. Comparing the Prime Minister’s statement with Lewis Carroll’s book Alice in Wonderland, the book reads like a cold, hard recitation of facts compared with the crazy situations that the Prime Minister managed to imagine. I heard him, along with the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) and other honourable members at a function to honour the Japanese Prime Minister which was held in Melbourne, make much the same sort of comment about the Soviet Union’s attempt to corner the world supply of oil from Iran, to lock that on” from the Western nations and to control the Persian Gulf. To his credit, the Japanese Prime Minister distanced himself from that position and made no such mention.

If what the Prime Minister is saying is true and if he is going to talk to us about the Soviet Union’s making every endeavour to corner the world’s oil supplies by moving into Afghanistan, then I suggest he ought to buy an atlas and have a look at it. Afghanistan is a land-locked country.

It has no sea ports. It is a very poor country. It has a population of somewhere around 18 million people. It has an illiteracy rate of somewhere around 90 per cent. The infant mortality rate is about 50 per cent. The best I can find out about its per capita income is that it is $ 1 60 per annum. Half of the arable land is owned by 5 per cent of the population, they being the wealthy aristocrats and, in most cases, religious leaders. The country is certainly no prize by anybody’s standards; certainly not by our standards.

I must also point out that geographically Afghanistan is surrounded by the Soviet Union. It borders with China, India, Pakistan and Iran. If the tactic of the Soviet Union were to take over the oilfields in Iran, which incidentally also has a common border with the Soviet Union, it would seem to me a very devious way of going about it. As the Prime Minister stated in this Parliament- I have no reason to doubt the right honourable gentleman’s words- the Soviet Union has a nuclear capacity equal to that of the United States, more conventional arms than the United States and an enormous army of men. It would seem to me that if the aim of the Russians was to take over the oil and to get access to the warm water of the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, surely the most direct way to do that would be to go into Iran, not to fiddle around in Afghanistan. Clearly that is not the aim of the Soviet Union. I do not believe that the people who are responsible for making decisions in the Soviet Union are all lunatics. Obviously the Prime Minister does. Quite clearly any assault by the Soviet Union on Iran would precipitate a third world war. The people who make the decisions there are not crazy enough to take that sort of stance.

It is incredible that the Prime Minister now suddenly finds that there are Russian troops in Afghanistan when, in fact, they have been there since 1978. As far back as 1973, after some 40 years of despotic dictatorship, there were subsequent coups which were always labelled by the United States Press in particular as a sign that Afghanistan was lurching to the Left. What the hell that means I do not know. I do not think that the journalist who wrote it knows. It is fairly good propaganda, if one is going to disparage the Soviet Union. It does seem to involve double standards when we come to reporting events like that. For example, now that there are armed Russians in Afghanistan we find that they are resisted by some local people, rebels if you like, and that they are held out as freedom fighters. Right next door in Iran where there is a similar set of circumstances- there was a coup therethere are armed men fighting against the Government, but those people are nameless insurgents.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-To continue the remarks I was making prior to the suspension of the sitting, it would seem that from all accounts of the current position the Prime Minister of Australia has egg on his face already. His blustering attitude on this whole question can only bring further egg to his face. I think the nation is well aware, following the response by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) to the Prime Minister’s address, of the difference between the sensible world statesmanlike approach that was taken by the Leader of the Opposition, in an endeavour to analyse the situation and see some reason in it, without thrusting his views upon the Australian community, and the attitude of the tourist Prime Minister who went around the world, huffing and puffing to all the world’s leaders about this matter and who was not very well received.

Nobody would condone, and certainly the amendment moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) does not do so, the action of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. However the Afghanistan situation cannot be seen in isolation from the whole history of world events, and certainly latter day history since the Second World War. I recall the bumbling attitude of the American Central Intelligence Agency, and its influence in places like Cuba, Vietnam, Chile, Iran and many others. I recall the propensity of the United States Government to prop up puppet regimes in countries that finally fell by the will of the people within those countries, because the oppressed rose up against those who were oppressing them. This inevitably brought the consequential response from the world Press; when the oppressed rose they were simply labelled as communists.

The main thrust of the Prime Minister’s address seems to centre around the boycotting of the Olympic Games in Moscow this year. He did not mention this specifically but he raises it continually. He keeps on drawing an analogy between the Moscow Games and the Olympics that were held in Berlin in 1936. He tries to draw some comfort from the events that flowed with the effluxion of time after those Games in 1936. He keeps taking us back to the point as if the Olympic Games in Berlin in 1936 triggered off the Second World War. Even a casual student of history would know that to be demonstrably untrue and false. In the same way nobody really believes that the holding of the Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980 will trigger off a Third World War- that is, nobody except the Prime Minister and those who sit behind him, especially those who are in marginal seats and, like the Prime Minister, realise that there are going to be a lot of seats lost in this election. They are seeking desperately for an election issue. The Prime Minister is trying, by sabre rattling, flag waving and jingoism, to bring about a khaki election. It just will not work because the Australian community is far more versed in world affairs than the Prime Minister.

To return to the Games, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) has been acutely embarrassed in this chamber over the last two days by the probing questions of the Opposition. We have exposed the double standards applied by this Government. Our young athletes, who have an opportunity only once every four years to demonstate their prowess against the world’s best, are told: ‘You will stay home’. The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) was quite blunt about this. He said that if the Government said that then the athletes and the Olympic Federation would fall into line, or else. He has again selected a group of people who are not in a very strong position to fight back. As I have just said, they have only one occasion in every four years to demonstate their prowess, whereas the farmers of this country, the grain growers, have a crop every year. Those who produce wool increase the size of their flocks every year and those who produce hides increase the size of their herds every year, and so they get a financial return every year.

But what happens when it is said to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), the Leader of the National Country Party, that if the Government is quite sincere in endeavouring to do something to injure the Soviet Union it ought to consider very seriously boycotting any sales of any commodity at all to the Soviet Union? Of course, he suggested this initially in the whole kerfuffle early this year before the Parliament met but he backed off very quickly when the grain growers and wool growers told him what they thought of him. Then the Prime Minister measured the size of his own clip at Nareen. He realised he would need to sell that and he found that the best place to sell it was to the Russian buyers. So double standards are being applied. The athletes of Australia are being chosen as those who will become the Prime Minister’s front line weapon against this dreadful Soviet Union.

This is a demonstration of his paranoia about Russia. That paranoia has been demonstrated for as long as he has been Prime Minister, and for many years prior. Like all conservatives, he is endeavouring to live in the past, to live back in the 1950s and 1960s, when there was the hysteria of the Cold War, and all that went with it, and McCarthyism. He is endeavouring to resurrect this as an election issue. It is just not going to work. As I have already said, the Australian people are too well informed to agree with that sort of nonsense.

Mr Martin:

– One could say they are being hypocritical.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Yes. If I were allowed to use that word in the House I would use it, but I am not. The Prime Minister ought to demonstrate his sincerity. He ought to back right away from the question of any boycott of the Olympics in Moscow and follow the world statesmanlike attitude of the newly elected Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau, who, upon his election, was quite unequivocal. The Parliament of Europe has expressed a view on this but the sovereign States that make up that Parliament have not said the same thing. So this leaves Australia and the United States of America at the present moment, standing like the last two wrinkles on the elephant’s what’s-its-name, maintaining a position that is untenable to the rest of the world. The Prime Minister is trying to make our very fine Olympic athletes some sort of weapon in his front line fight against the Soviet Union. I would implore him to change his direction. There is nothing to be gained from that stance. The Australian community does not agree with him. All of the polls that have been held show that about three quarters of the Australian people believe our athletes should go to Moscow and should compete. He is out of step with the Australian community and he is out of step with the world community.

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

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for your indulgence. Due to an error of my office and through my fault, of course, the list of speakers inadvertently showed the name of the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) at the top and he quite rightly jumped up and received the call. This means that we have had two Opposition speakers in a row. I ask, with the indulgence of the Opposition and yourself, that we should have that privilege also; that we have two consecutive speakers now. That would put the list back in order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If the proposal meets with the consent of the Manager of Opposition Business, the Chair is prepared to grant that request.

Mr Hurford:

– We do not object.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-From the outset I resist the temptation to say those words ‘I told you so’, but it is a matter of record in this Parliament that since my election in 1975 I have consistently and continuously warned that the greatest threat to world peace is the unbridled military expansionism of the Soviet Union. Further, I have consistently and continuously contended that from the Soviet point of view detente was a fraud, a confidence trick, and that the West was being led into supine acquiescence and appeasement; that sooner or later someone somewhere was going to have to stand up and say, firmly and unequivocally: ‘Enough. This far and no further’. I choose today to quote again to this Parliament the immortal words of Winston Churchill uttered in the House of Commons on 21 September 1938 against another monstrous totalitarian regime of another generation which had shortly before invaded Czechoslovakia. Churchill said: the idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small state to the wolves is a fatal delusion.

He made that statement in the context of the Chamberlain doctrine of appeasement. In another speech, less than one month later, Churchill said that the world: . . should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history . . . and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: Thou are weighed in the balance and found wanting and do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden times.

It is interesting to note that in that debate in the House of Commons, Churchill was able to muster only three supporters- Duff Cooper, Bracken and his own son-in-law, Duncan Sandys. Unlike certain members of the Labor Party opposite I claim total consistency with respect to two separate issues. Firstly, as long ago as 22 August 1 978 I contended in this House, by notice of motion, that the Soviet Union had revealed itself to be totally unfit to be the host nation of the 1980 Olympic Games. Since that date I have campaigned unceasingly that the 1980 Olympic Games should be taken away from Moscow and, alternatively, that if the Games could not be moved, in no circumstances should an Australian team compete in any games conducted anywhere within the Soviet Union. It would be a tragic blunder of major proportions if the world were to repeat in 1980 in Moscow the very same mistake it made in 1936 in Berlin with the nazi Olympic Games propaganda exercise.

Secondly, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has chosen, foolishly in view of his own very sorry record, to refer to the tragedy of East Timor, let me say here and now for everyone to hear that I was as outspoken in my condemnation of the brutal invasion of East Timor by Indonesia as I am now of the brutal invasion of Afghanistan by the master bully of the world, the Soviet Union. The Leader of the Opposition will have to make peace with his own conscience. On neither East Timor nor Afghanistan do I have any blood on my hands, or guilt on my conscience. Whether by accident or by design the Leader of the Australian Labor Party- which ought to be renamed the Apologist Labor Party- has led his colleagues in a succession of statements which have had the indisputable effect of giving comfort and support to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, at the same time whittling away and white-anting the strong and resolute response of Australia to the brutal Soviet invasion of ill-defended and underdefended Afghanistan.

In a succession of speeches the Leader of the Opposition and several of his colleagues have excused, watered down, apologised and appeased in relation to the Soviet actions in Afghanistan. I will let the record speak for itself by quoting what they have said verbatim and without comment. These quotations will clearly demonstrate how they have convicted themselves out of their own mouths. I will quote firstly what the Leader of the Opposition had to say in this Parliament on 19 February. There are 10 quotations and I will make them without any additional comment. He said:

This was not a thrust for a ‘warm water port’.

The assertion that the Soviet Union may have been moving to control the West’s oil cannot be sustained.

The Soviet Union’s military capability to interdict oil destined for the West has not been significantly enhanced by invading Afghanistan.

Soviet aggression then seems to have been a result of perceived weakness to the south, rather than a confident step in a steady expansionist drive.

I do not for a moment believe that the Soviet Union would be sufficiently imprudent to challenge vital Western oil interests in Iran, or elsewhere in the Persian Gulf or Middle East.

The problems for the West in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf do not, however, stem primarily from Soviet behaviour.

The Prime Minister of Australia apparently is prepared to write off detente with no regrets. He is dangerously wrong if that is so.

Detente continues, and it is irresponsible of the Prime Minister of Australia to suggest otherwise.

And listen to this:

The tanks and troops and planes of the Soviet military machine do not appear to be enough to subdue Afghanistan.

Afghanistan could, indeed, bleed the Soviet Union socially and economically if present intentions are pursued.

He is convicted out of his own mouth. Anyone listening to that speech would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition was talking about Afghanistan invading the Soviet Union. That man, in that statement to this Parliament, has indicated his total failure to appreciate the danger to the peace of the world from the actions of the Soviet Union. I believe that no further proof is needed. I turn now to the discredited honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). He was slaughtered in this Parliament on Tuesday afternoon by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock). Why so? In two statements outside the Parliament Mr Keating said the following words:

It is so far away from our area of interest -

That is Afghanistan- and Australia is not threatened, so we should leave it to the big powers.

He said also:

It is extremely unlikely that the Soviet Union will attack Pakistan or Iran. After all, who would want Pakistan? Or for that matter, who would want Afghanistan?

Shame on him. The same honourable member made a further statement in this Parliament. He said:

Quite obviously if one wants to find an explanation for the Soviet Union’s unforgivable behaviour, it is found -

Listen to this- in its paranoia with the instability of a pro-Soviet government in a Muslim area on its border.

The honourable member for Blaxland ought to have listented to the honourable member for

Prospect (Dr Klugman) who has stood alone in contrast with his colleagues up until this time in the debate in taking an honourable and resolute course. I have no shame at all in congratulating the honourable member for Prospect for the manner in which he participated and the strength with which he expressed his views, particularly on the question of the Olympic Games boycott.

I shall go a little further and quote two comments made by two other members. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) made a comment which is as predictable as it is true. In an election year the significance of these words should not be overlooked. He said:

If the Opposition has to play the traditional role of occasionally losing an election by being right about an issue then so be it.

If that is not the kiss of death to the Labor Party’s chances in 1980 1 do not know what is. If we go a little further we see that the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) made the comment:

The Prime Minister has said that the Soviet Union ‘s action in Afghanistan is ‘an act of aggression’ which has as its objective the penetration of the Persian Gulf, the control of western oil supplies, the domination of the Indian Ocean and the precipitation of a third world war.

He said further:

Might I question that assumption? There is scant evidence to support this view.

One has to read the balance of his speech to appreciate exactly what he was saying. I find it unfortunate, but nevertheless necessary, to say that a succession of statements by leaders of the Australian Labor Party over the last few weeks have demonstrated that that party has adopted a weak, apathetic and vacillating attitude with respect to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Here in Australia it has taken a weaker line than the French communist party and the Italian communist party have and it is a pretty sorry reflection on the alternative government in this country when communist parties in Europe can take a stronger line against the Soviet Union than has the Australian Labor Party here in Australia. Its comments have given great comfort to Comrade Brezhnev and Comrade Sudarikov- the arrogant, bullying Soviet Ambassador in this country. Dr Nickolai Sudarikov, came out of a 90 minute Press conference with our Minister for Foreign Affairs. He was asked a very straightforward question, and what did he say? After the meeting Mr Sudarikov was asked whether the Soviet Government was concerned about possible Australian retaliation against its Afghanistan move. He replied: ‘Russians are afraid of no one’. This is what Dr Comrade Nickolai

Sudarikov says as the Ambassador of the Soviet Union in this country. We will have more to say about that gentleman later in the session. I completely agree with the comments in the editorial in the Sydney Sun of 9 January, which states:

The Government’s diplomatic cuff to the Russian Ambassador, Mr Sudarikov, apparently had little effect.

He emerged from a 90-minute session with the Foreign Minister, Mr Peacock, and arrogantly announced that Russia feared no one.

His haughty comment reflects his country’s attitude to international outrage over the invasion of Afghanistan.

It’s now up to the countries of the free world, including Australia, to make the Russians care.

To make it abundantly clear that we won’t stand by wringing our hands while they ride roughshod over weaker nations.

If this Parliament had the power to do it, I would like to see Canberra Avenue, where the Soviet Embassy is situated, re-named Sakharov Street in honour of the great Russian dissident, the first Russian to come out publicly and say to the West: ‘Boycott the Olympic Games’. Comrade Sudarikov was interviewed by John Bryant for the Canberra Times, and I want to read two quick quotes. This is what the Soviet Ambassador to Australia said to the people of Australia:

The Soviet people are very peace-loving and never start wars- we are always fighting against aggressors.

Great! Afghanistan apparently has attacked the Soviet Union. He went on:

The peaceful policy of the Soviet Union is not widely understood.

How true! On the question of the Olympic Games, the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) claimed that West Germany would not support an Olympic boycott. According to a newspaper article, only last weekend, Mr Hans Dietrich Genscher, the West German Foreign Minister, reminded West Germans:

We expect solidarity from the United States in Berlin, and we will not deny it in the question of the Olympics. ‘ This followed an earlier declaration of support for a postponement of the Games by Mr Willi Weyer, a leading member of the West German Olympic Committee.

The same report from Hamburg proves more forcibly the correctness of what the Prime Minister and the Government have been saying about the similarity between Berlin 1936 and Moscow 1980. It states:

A boycott of the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin could have had a moderating influence on Hitler and his policies. It might even have prevented World War II.

Fifty-three per cent of West Germans interviewed expressed this view in a recent public opinion poll conducted by the Emnid Institute after the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.

Some 53 per cent of West Germans believe that a boycott of the 1 936 Berlin Olympic Games could even have prevented World War II. Incidentally, the Soviet Union boycotted those Games, so it is no stranger to boycotts. That has not been mentioned before in this debate. The Soviet bully has had its own way for too long. The Soviet Union is determined to use the Olympic Games as the major propaganda exercise in its entire history. As has been reported, it will be a magnificent feast for KGB recruiting. Members of the Labor Party have said that Australia should stand by in the wings, that Australia should wait until other nations take the lead, to see whether a boycott will be effective. They are numbers men. I say that Australia should stand on the side of the nations which support freedom and basic human rights. The only way we can do that honourably is to condemn the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan by boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I rise in a somewhat different frame of mind from that of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I believe that there were moral and political imperatives for the Australian Government to follow the lead of the United States in taking the action it did, both with regard to Afghanistan and with regard to the Olympic Games. I want to start from the basis of once being, I believe, a scholar of communism. The objectives of the Communist Party in Moscow, in the Soviet Union, are quite obvious. They are Marxist-Leninist. What that means, is that the members of the Communist Party want socialisation of the whole world, of the means of production, distribution and exchange. It is not a localised question but one of world domination. In the words of Marx himself, they also want a classless society, but that society is to be dominated by the Communist Party- by the proletariat, if you like. But whenever they get their hands on domination, on leadership, there is no way in the world in which they can be shifted to ensure that democracy has a chance of surviving.

I have had long experience of this issue. Relying on my memory, I well remember that in 1 923 Marshal Bulganin turned up in Kabul and made a statement favouring the Pathans. They were one of the great fighting forces under the British raj. Thank heavens they were trained at Quetta and other places and knew a great deal about the military strength of loyalty. He wanted to form Paktunistan and he was going to give 800 Pathans all of the territory of Pakistan west of the Indus River. If that had occurred they would have had total access first of all to the Arabian Sea and then to the Indian Ocean, which is where we live and where we have our interests. For 2,000 years the wish of some countries to dominate Afghanistan has been apparent. It is the gateway to the Middle East, to India, to Iran, to all the countries that give access to the Indian Ocean.

Let me look at the facts. I have spent some time in communist countries. My wife and I have spent several weeks there. We should consider the domination that has occurred by the Soviet Union, which is in dreadful trouble for the time being. It has some particularly great difficulties at the moment. It is the greatest producer of crude oil in the world but its supplies are gradually slowing up. It did have access to a couple of million barrels a day from Iran, but Ayatollah Khomeini in his wisdom- this time he did display wisdom- destroyed the pipeline carrying crude and will not permit petroleum gas to flow through another. Wherever one goes in the countries I have visited- whether to Poland, the Soviet Union itself, East Germany, Czechoslovakia or Hungary- there is a dread and loathing of the communist regimes and of the bosses in Moscow. We all know that because of the problems associated with the crude oil that the Soviet Union needs it has had to cut out supplies to its satellites in Europe. That frightened me when I was there. If the problems in Iran went on for too long there was no doubt at all in my mind that the Russians would be tempted to take action so far as Iran is concerned. What have they done? They now have three divisions in the west towards the Iranian border, a further three in the north and east, which face Pakistan, and parts of a division south of Kandahar.

Any person with a brain in his head would realise that if the Russians could get control of the Indus River, if they could go through Hyderabad, past Quetta and places such as that, and down to the coastline, they would achieve a great goal and would gain further access to their means for world domination. Anyone who knows the Soviet ideology and its attitude towards world dominance must be an idiot to think that in those circumstances there could be any other action than the one taken by the Australian Government in co-operation with the United States Government. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) must get, should get, the approval of this House in its entirety, if those on the other side of the House, with the exception of one or two, believe that the welfare of this country, its freedom and its right to live its own life in its own way is to be preserved. I and most of the people I know congratulate the Prime Minister.

I come back to deal very quickly with the case associated with the Olympic Games. All of us know by now that the Soviet Union is in a panic about what is likely to happen. One of the weapons of restraint that can be used against it is humiliation, and those who read United States journals such as Newsweek will know that day in and day out, week in and week out, its journalists are saying in their reports that the KGB and the Soviet Government are in a state of panic. We must ensure that a great number of countries defy the Soviet Union, use their common sense, and prevail upon their people, particularly their athletes, to understand that they are being used for political propaganda. Many statements have been made by athletes, and they have been referred to in this House, but if the athletes get to know that they are being used for political purposes surely they will say that they are not prepared to go. I hope that increasing numbers of them will not go. Fortunately, we have time before a final decision must be made. But as I read the signs and in particular, the decision of the European Economic Community yesterday, there can be no doubt that we will find a growing antipathy not only to Afghanistan but also to the Olympic Games. Those are two of the points that I wanted to make. I turn now to the Labor Party’s attitudes to these matters. This morning, in this House I asked a question concerning an appearance by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) on a television show last night. He said that in Afghanistan -

Mr Cohen:

– Tell us what you said about South Africa and sport and politics not mixing.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition has written a letter to me about that. The honourable member should be very quiet or I will quote it to him and he will make an idiot of himself.

Mr Cohen:

– I have a copy of your speech.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Well, the honourable member is a wonderful person because I am not reading from a prepared speech; I am reading from notes. The honourable member is a genius! In any event, let me return to the point that I was making. The point that has to be made here is that we in the West are labouring under a disadvantage in that insofar as international or intra-country nuclear weapons are concerned- there can be no doubt on this- the Soviet has a very marked advantage. We need time and we must get time. I believe that the actions that are now being taken by the free countries will ensure that we do not have a war because I believe that the Soviet will retract. But we do need time in order to develop our own MX nuclear weapon which is intercontinental but which, for the first time, will be mobile and therefore not easily overcome by weapons directed from the Soviet Union. Furthermore, we need the cruise missile just as we need the second variety of the Pershing equipment which consists of the finest tactical nuclear weapons that have ever been developed. Therefore time is critically important to us.

This brings me to the next point I want to make about the Labor Party and in particular about Bob Hawke talking about banning the export of wool. If we are to prepare ourselves adequately for the defence of the free world and particularly if the United States is to play its part and we are to play a part of a smaller but nonetheless very gallant nation, we need time. That being so, if we are to build up our strength, we must recognise that we are Australians and we depend very much upon our export industries from which we can increase our gross national product and out of that gross national product make a still greater attempt at building up our defence prospects. To the extent that Hawke and giggling people like the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) on the Opposition front bench would join in this policy of cutting down on our capacity to export- in which case Hawke must be peculiar; he must be looking to the support of the socialist left at present- they would be cutting down our industrial strength and through our industrial strength, reducing our capacity to defend ourselves. That is the first point I wanted to make. My second point relates to the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition on democracy. He implicitly said that President Daoud, who was a communist and attached to the Soviet Union, was murdered. Two subsequent presidents were also murdered. The third is the total agent of the Soviet Union. He is not liked and not respected and I suppose that he will go soon.

I want to put two other points of view to you, Mr Deputy Speaker and to the House. The first is that if we are genuinely concerned- I know we are- we should be taking action not only to ensure that the ANZUS treaty survives and is made really effective but also that the South East Asia Treaty Organisation is reactivated. The Labor Party tried to destroy ANZUS; it did destroy SEATO. President Carter has now given guarantees to Thailand that SEATO is still in force and that if Thailand needs help, the United States will not be backward in being able to provide it. Equally we must become a partner in being able to give some aid to those states immediately to the north of us. In our trade relationships and in our goodwill, we must be able to join with them in seeing that their future is protected too. If one believes that the objective is international socialism, international communism dominated by Moscow, one also must take into consideration the rights and the freedom of the area in which we live. Therefore I believe that SEATO should be reactivated and that we should be actively participating in it.

I want to draw attention to one other matter which was raised in the speech of the Prime Minister and that is the Middle East and the desirability of reaching a settlement so far as the Arabs and Israelis are concerned. I believe that such a settlement should be reached through the United Nations, but that under no circumstances must we in any way inhibit the ability of the Israeli people to be able to play their part as part of the defence of the Western world.

Mr Howe:

– You can’t even stop the Israelis setting up settlements on the West Bank.

Mr Martyr:

– Give him a belting, Bill. Give it to him.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I will not take any notice. I would say that he was a b. idiot, but I dare not say such things in this House. I would not do that. We must also remember the dangers that are associated with Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and with South Africa. If the Soviet Union were ever to get into the Indian Ocean, South Africa and in particular Simonstown naval base, would be absolutely essential to us. When I look at Zimbabwe-Rhodesia I look at dangers in the future. I think that everyone would have to concede the dangers that exist of an indecisive ending to this problem. I hope that the new government will be the Muzorewa Government. Mugabe will get about 35 per cent of the votes and Nkomo about 8 per cent. It will be pretty level going as to who gets actual authority and control of the country. But I do hope that we can always be thinking of southern Rhodesia and others of that kind.

I finish on this note: I believe that we have to persuade the Australian people, as we have done on other occasions, of their duties and responsibilities to support this Government. The Prime Minister has been right; the feeling in my party has been right. The Labor Party has never in its history, with the exception of the Curtin Government, been reliable in times of war. Sitting on the front bench is the former Labor Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition, who deliberately cut down the strength of the Australian forces by depriving them of the funds with which they would have been able to build up our defence strength and defend us in a time of need. This is a time of need. I think, in fact I know, that the Australian people will support the Australian Government.

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

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-This Government and its predecessors have an appalling record in foreign affairs. In 1938, Sir Robert Menzies came back from Germany and said that he thought Hitler’s regime showed the world the way ahead. He would not have supported an Olympic boycott in 1936. In 1950 he predicted a global war in three years. In 1950 the Korean War was said by the Menzies Government to be an aggressive move by China although we know now that the Chinese had only a token involvement in Korea with a somewhat larger involvement by the Russians, and, oddly enough, an even larger involvement by the North Koreans themselves.

In 1956, Sir Robert Menzies told Australia that if Egypt got control of the Suez Canal that would be the finish of Australia; our lifeline would be cut off and we would simply sink into insignificance. That did not exactly happen. In 1963, we were warned that we would be at war with Indonesia within 12 months. That did not happen. For years the Liberal Party argued that China was trying to rule Vietnam through its puppet, Ho Chi Minh. We are now a little wiser. We had a paranoid view of the world, that was absolutely, completely, inconsistent with the realities. For over 30 years this Parliament has been given a completely distorted view of foreign affairs. The reality was bad enough but the distortions have been based on delusions to such an extent and for such base motives that until the 1 970s it was difficult to conduct an intelligent and reasonable debate on foreign policy in the Parliament. Even now, as the Fraser hawk pushes the Peacock dove off centre stage we seem to be going back to the bad old days of the 1950s Cold War.

In 1876, during the Russo-Turkish wars; the Clapham Borough Council issued a thundering denunciation of Czarist Russia which began with the ringing words, ‘We warn the Czar! ‘-a sentence often quoted as an example of the futility of posturing and striking attitudes over incidents which are essentially beyond your control and in respect of which you do not do anything other than posture. The Australian Prime Minister (Mr

Malcolm Fraser) shakes his fist and warns President Brezhnev, not the Czar, but it is still strictly a cynical, opportunistic, hypocritical, low cost, no risk warning. It is a prime example of the conflict in the Fraser Government between the expression of moral outrage and the concept of business as usual’. The Fraser Government has decided to conduct its foreign policy on the principle of selective sacrifice by young people, a principle with which it is thoroughly familiar. I am surprised that it did not institute a birthday ballot for the Olympic athletes, one under which some could go and some could stay. The principle of selective sacrifice was well established in the Vietnam War of disgraceful memory.

If we had amended the motion to include a complete boycott of trade with Russia in wheat, wool, rutile and other primary products we would not get a vote on the Government side. If Government supporters have to choose between principle and profit they will go for profit every time. The only risk that the Prime Minister runs in all of this is that he might suffer from chapped lips.

Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have four of the most awful governments in the world, but there are differences. In military terms the first three are awful and weak but the Soviet Union is awful and strong. Some pressure may be applied to induce the USSR to modify its policies in some ways, but when it comes to the crunch one can divert a major power from what it is doing in only two ways- either by wearing it down over very many years, as happened to the United States in Vietnam, or by threat or application of massive force, and we know what that would lead to. That is why I deplore what was said by the former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), on this. It is wonderful to talk about all of the new massive technology that you can have in the various ‘nukes’ that have been developed. The question is: Are we prepared to use them? If we are, it is finito for the world as we know it.

I am profoundly suspicious of the Prime Minister’s role in all of this. There is no advantage to be gained by generating friction between two major atomic powers. It is even worse to go to one of those two major powers and attempt to generate a degree of enthusiasm when they ought to be saying, ‘Let us look at the whole problem in a total context’. It is clear that nothing short of direct military confrontation between the United States and the USSR will force the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, and that means the use of nuclear weapons. Is anyone prepared to assert that the United States should go to the limit? How do you stop a major power short of using major force? The Prime Minister has come dangerously close to advocating that.

I do not propose to defend the indefensible, but it is necessary to put the Afghanistan invasion in a geographical and historical context. Ever since the time of the czars, Russia’s rulers have had a paranoid fear of invasion and overthrow of the regime which has resulted in the creation of a series of buffer states, of which Finland, Poland, Romania, Afghanistan and Mongolia are the best known. That primary element in Russian foreign policy has not changed for a century. It long pre-dated the Russian Revolution of 1917. In a great power the consequences of paranoid fear and paranoid aggression are indistinguishable. On Tuesday night the House was told by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) that the Soviet Union had had a bad record in foreign affairs since 1919, but he did not explain exactly what that bad record was. We need to look at the context of that bad record. In World War I Russia lost 3,800,000 men. Some five million more were wounded. In 1918 civil war broke out and later that year, and in 1919, the Soviet Union was invaded by France, the United States, Britain, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Poland and Finland. It is true that the Russians behaved very badly indeed- they defended themselves.

During World War II in Europe, Hitler’s war, on a conservative estimate 38 million lives were lost. Other estimates go as high as 54 million. On the conservative estimate, the Soviet Union lost 22 million dead. Just think of that figure for a minute. Germany lost just over seven million, Britain about 400,000 and the United States about one million. That does not in any way justify the horror of what Stalin did during the collectivisation campaign. It does not justify what Stalin did in the 1930s or what happened after 1945, but we have to understand the paranoid domestic climate of opinion within the Soviet Union. It is one of the factors that we have to take into account whether we like it or not. No other country, not even Germany, suffered the degree of devastation that was suffered by the USSR, with the possible exception of Poland. Fear has been the dominant force in Soviet foreign policy since 1945, and indeed long before. Fear is a disastrous emotion to dominate national policy. It generates paranoia and, in turn, feeds on it. Fear forces nations to arm to the teeth and, when other nations rush to re-arm as a means of redressing the arms imbalance, this is taken as proof that the fears are justified and there is a panicky intensification of rearmament in which conventional weapons are augmented by atomic bombs, then by hydrogen or fusion bombs, then by missiles, atomic weapons, atomic submarines and so on.

Does this fear justify what the Soviet Union has done in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan? Of course not, but it does remind us of the world of paranoia and fear which determines Soviet foreign policy. The judgment of what we often call ‘the free world’ is not completely free of paranoia and fear either. Indeed, the early years of the Cold War, the Korean War and the Vietnam War were marked by fear and paranoia to a considerable degree. The Russians see themselves as surrounded, as indeed they are. The tragedy is that there are good historic reasons for Russian fears of foreign hostility and there are certainly current reasons for apprehension on the part of Russia’s neighbours. If we look at a globe of the world we can see, as President Brehznev and his cohorts are no doubt doing, that the USSR is entirely surrounded by military bases on her periphery- in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand and an increasingly hostile China, with nuclear armaments.

Mr Baillieu:

– Does that justify what she has done?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-No, of course not.

Mr Baillieu:

– Well, why do you say it?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-It helps us to understand them. Unless we take into account their state of mind we are going to be in worse trouble and there is no hope for the world. We have to understand that judgment, as to whether military actions are aggressive or defensive are made according to one’s point of view. Bombing Kampuchea back to the Stone Age was seen as pan of a great peace-making plan by President Nixon and Dr Kissinger. The Australian Government went along with that. Australia said, ‘It is only a defensive operation. ‘ It depends on your point of view. The other night the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) said that we should be grateful that President Carter has declared the Persian Gulf area to be vital to the United States. Would honourable members regard it as legitimate for President Brezhnev to say, ‘We have decided to declare the Gulf of Mexico vital to the USSR and are going to move in our warships’? Yet, presumably, we regard it as legitimate for President Carter to say that the Persian Gulf is a vital area. It all depends on one’s point of view.

An additional factor is disturbing the Soviet leadership at the moment. I refer to the rise of militant Islamic fundamentalism. In 1978 the military regime of General Zia overthrew Mr Bhutto’s secular republic and restored Islamic rule. In 1979, the Shah fell from heaven, left Iran and the Ayotollah Khomeini swept to power. He has remained there, although the election of Mr Bani Sadr as President gives hope for a more moderate domestic policy. Afghanistan, which is overwhelmingly Moslem, might if left to its own devices follow the sweep of militant Islam. So might Turkey. The Soviet Union has a very substantial Moslem minority, numbering perhaps 35 million, or about 12.4 per cent of its total population. We must remember that Russians account for only 53 per cent of the population in Russia.

Perhaps the greatest reason for current paranoia in Russia is the fear that nationalist, cultural and religious separatism will threaten or even destroy the political unity of the USSR. I do not believe that it will. But that is not the point. The Soviet leaders appear to believe it They would like to crush militant Islam, and quickly. That makes them react hysterically. Dissent is equated with treason and differences of opinion are treated as treacherous attacks on the nation. Fear does appalling things to judgment, to the sense of objectivity and tolerance. So Sakharov is exiled, others are gaoled and expelled, and some are sent to psychiatric institutions.

Let me say at once that there is a case for boycotting the Games, but it will be futile, cynical and hypocritical to make this a unique, low-cost protest while as a trading nation we pursue a policy of ‘business as usual’ with Russia. I draw attention to the protest of a group of French intellectuals which appeared in the New York Review of Books. It is a protest signed by Raymond Aron, philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir, writer, Michel Foucault, philosopher, Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie, historian, Simone Signoret, actress, and Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Prize winning philosopher. I will not have time to read it out so I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

FRENCH INTELLECTUALS AND THE OLYMPICS

The statement printed in part below was issued in Paris on January 24 and signed, among others, by: Raymond Aron, Simone de Beauvoir, Michel Foucault, Emmanuel LeRoy Ladurie, Simone Signoret, and Jean-Paul Sartre.

The signers said they ‘condemn the premeditated military aggression of the USSR against Afghanistan. They are much concerned about the possibilities of similar acts of aggression taking place in the future against such a country in Asia or in Europe. They wish to make it clear that with some exceptions French politicians and statesmen have preferred to ignore, or half excuse, or even to justify this aggression.

The signers pointed out ‘that human rights are being treated with greater and greater scorn in the Soviet Union; that so prestigious a person as Andrei Sakharov, who had until recently been spared, has now been attacked. In this situation, they demand that both government and sporting authorities not issue to the Soviet Union the certificate of good conduct and of moral legitimacy that its government opes to obtain by holding the Olympic games in Moscow.

Years ago refugees from Germany as well as members of the Jewish community in the USSR mounted protests against the Olympic games in Berlin on grounds that they conferred a dangerous legitimacy on Hitler. And during the past two years most of the Soviet dissidents have taken positions against the Olympics being held in the capital of the USSR. The signers therefore firmly demand the boycott of the Olympic Games and call on their fellow citizens to speak out on this question. ‘

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I thank the House. There is a case for boycott but, frankly, once the International Olympic Committee had decided that the Games would go on the Olympic boycott was a dead duck. But I am not sure that it would have had the desired effect. When a nation is subject to total media control, as in the Soviet Union- or to some extent as in Australia- it is easy for governments to manipulate matters any way they like. If the Games went on as originally planned the Russians would say: ‘A triumph for the Soviet Union and an endorsement of all our policies!’. If there were a partial boycott they would say: ‘This confirms our views that the Soviet Union is hated and that we are surrounded by enemies who want to bring us down’.

We must be careful not to deal with a long term situation by over-reacting to a short term crisis. This is the only planet we have and if we are going to keep it more or less intact we have to remember that we will be dealing with the Russians and with something like the present form of Soviet Government from here on in until the end of the century. The result is that it is very important that we do not see the Afghanistan incursion, horrific and dreadful as it is, as being the end of the world. Looking back with that wonderful 20-20 vision that hindsight gives us we have to ask frankly whether in 1 956, terrible as the Russian invasion of Hungary was, or in 1 968, when the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia, it would have been better for us to have brought out the nukes’, to have wheeled out the intercontinental ballistic missiles and to have said: ‘Right, this is it. It is now 10 seconds to countdown’. I do not believe it would have been. The most important thing is that we ensure that the policies that we pursue are put in a wider context. This means, if we want to protest about what the Soviet Union has been doing, that we show the guts to provide for economic sanctions and not leave it to the

Olympic athletes by saying: ‘You will make a symbolic sacrifice on behalf of the rest of us ‘.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-Australia is a free nation. We have a freedom that has been hard won and that each and everyone of us would not give up without a fight. We have been at war on several occasions to maintain this freedom not only for ourselves but also for other free nations of the world. We are not isolated in our freedom. We are not too far away from those forces which are acting to destroy freedom not to be affected by those very same forces. We have been counted in the past in all attempts to preserve freedom and we will be counted again whenever and wherever freedom is threatened. Australia is far from being alone in all attempts to preserve freedom. It is far from being alone in the world cry against communist aggression and against military murder. We are not a voice crying in the wilderness, as some of the squeaks from the Opposition would have us believe. The Western world is united in a wholehearted condemnation of the actions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in Afghanistan. What will it take to have members of the Opposition join in this condemnation of naked aggression?

The great majority of the Australian people has indicated support for the Australian Government’s attitude and for the steps proposed- a clear demonstration of the revulsion of Australians generally to the actions of the USSR in Afghanistan. A clear indication must be given that there can be no ‘next on the list’ for Russian aggression. There is not a member on this side of the House who can give an assurance that the list ends with Afghanistan. Perhaps the Opposition could provide this assurance. Can the Opposition provide the assurance that Russia will pull out of Afghanistan, that Russia will not be aggressive in the area of Iran, that Russia will not be aggressive in Pakistan or that the expansion of Russian communism into areas over which it has trod roughshod in the past has finished for all time?

The expansion of Russian communism with resultant loss of life, the creation of massive numbers of refugees and the devastation of cultures and unique ways of life are the perils we as a nation must face in the future if there is any acceptance in any way, shape or form of Russian aggression in Afghanistan. The Labor Party has been very vocal in the past in condemning actions of other nations and in condoning various types of bans on the handling and the shipping of Australian produce and manufactures to such areas. This time around there has been a remarkable silence not only from the Labor Party but also from the powerful trade unions who in the main are communist controlled and who together can manage to organise so-called national strikes at a moment’s notice.

The Government has responded in a very positive way to the action of Russia in Afghanistan as a demonstration of this nation ‘s concern at the threat that has once again raised its ugly head. This response, this reaction by the Government to an act of naked aggression and occupation, has undoubtedly received the wholehearted support of the great majority of Australians. It is a responsible and supportive response containing that same revulsion to the action of the USSR as was expressed by no fewer than 104 nations at the United Nations, included among whom were many nations which are normally sypathetic to the actions and ideologies of the USSR.

Is it too much to expect the Opposition to be honest and to reflect the majority view of the Australian people, because that view has already been reflected in a quick and positive way by the Government? The Opposition may not regard Australia as an important country in the world today, but it is. This Government certainly does and it will continue to ensure that Australia’s voice is heard and that, wherever necessary, that voice will be supported by responsible action. Australia has played and will continue to play an important role in world affairs. Australia will not shirk its responsibilities to its own citizens in the maintenance of freedom. Neither will Australia stand aside and remain silent when the citizens of the free world are threatened by an aggressor which murders and destroys prior to subjugation.

In denouncing the Russian action in Afghanistan we must look closely at the effect that our words and actions have on Russia and indeed on the Russian people, the Russian citizens. From past events, from experiences of Western travellers through Russia and from personal experiences of individual emigrants and refugees from Russian-controlled states and territories, we know the extent of subjugation, of hardship and of the complete lack of any personal and human freedoms. More particularly, we know from the same sources of the extent to which information is withheld from the Soviet citizen. One of our tasks then is to ensure that any protest we make, any revulsion we feel and any action we take are noticed by the ordinary citizens of the Soviet Union.

Some of our actions and similar actions by other nations in the Western world have been criticised by the Opposition and by the dogooders as lacking in substance, as having no effect and as being synonomous to saying: Naughty boy, go home now and do not do it again’. That attitude is to be expected and can bear mention only in the context of members of the Opposition assuring us that the feelings of outrage and disgust being expressed by the Western world are freely made known to the Soviet citizens and are not supressed, as we know they are. Where are the articles in Pravda and Tass and where is the evidence of the voice of Radio Moscow acknowledging that the free Press of the world, that the citizens of all the countries of the world, that all governments outside the Soviet bloc, are calling for the immediate withdrawal of all Soviet troops from Afghanistan? Would Australia’s notorious communists or a delegation from those critical of Australia’s action to date dare journey to Russia and convey to the Soviet citizens the representative view of the Australian citizens on the Russian presence in Afghanistan? No way, because they have had it too good here in Australia. They would fear too much for their own skin and bones. Immediately on their arrival they would be exiled to some remote labour camp and advised that they have as much right as the ordinary Soviet citizen, and that amounts to none.

Non-participation in the Olympic Games is one very direct way of getting the message across to the Russians. Contrast that with the cutting off of some or all of our exports to Russia. In that case the message would not reach the Russian people. They would not be told that Australia had cut off exports of wheat or the reason. They would be required to go on silently suffering and the cause would be disguised by the inefficiencies of the Soviet economy and by government propaganda.

To participate in the Moscow summer games would be directly to recognise and to give credence to naked aggression, an expansionist military policy and subjugation of small, independent and non-aligned underdeveloped countries. To attend the Moscow games would be tantamount to approval of the aggression in Afghanistan and extension of that aggression to other areas. To attend would be to give tacit approval to further aggression in strategically important areas, such as Iran and Pakistan. To attend would be to recognise the USSR’s desires on warm water ports. To attend would be to say that we in Australia do not care what actions Russia perpetrates on other nations. To attend would be to play into Russia’s hands and to allow it to take, military, the attitude: ‘Look, we can do what we like and have that act accepted by the rest of the world ‘. Australia will not be a sheep in the international arena, as acceptance of the Labor Party’s policy would promote. This Government believes firmly that Australians desire to the utmost that their voice be heard and that this voice be supported by actions that are clearly designed to demonstrate our complete and utter revulsion at the act of naked aggression by Russia in Afghanistan.

Australia is involved in a strong supportive role to that of the United States. Australia has demonstrated that support in the form of refusing to fill any shortfall on previously proposed shipments of grain to the USSR by the United States. Australia has demonstrated an additional demonstration of Australia’s revulsion of Russia’s action in Afghanistan by the termination of the involvement in scientific and cultural exchanges; the termination of negotiations as to fishing projects and the request that resulted in the cancellation of a large trade exhibition at the Sydney Royal Easter Show and the cancellation of a tour by a Russian basketball team. The Labor Party would have none of this. The Labor Party would say to all Australians, including those of more recent date who fled what was once called their home because of this same aggressive presence of the USSR, that the USSR would not worry us, that it is a good mate and that we, the free people of the world, have nothing to fear. What utter rubbish! The Labor Party would have Australia and Australians demonstrate nothing. The Australian Government, on behalf of the Australian people, has full cognizance of the Olympic movement. It has a full understanding of the Olympic ideal. Australia has participated in the games of the modern olympiad over the years according to the movement and according to the highest Olympic ideals. Australia believes in the upholding of these ideals, a belief that is manifestly not shared by Russia. The absence from Moscow of athletes from most, if not all, of the important countries of the world could not easily be explained away by the Russian war machine to the citizens of Russia.

It was pleasing to hear this morning in the national news that Kenya, which has magnificent athletes who no doubt would be able to gather a number of gold medals at the Olympic Games, has also joined the Western world in refusing to allow those magnificent athletes to go to the Olympic Games. It has done so as a matter of principle. A tremendous amount of money and effort has been invested by the Russian Government in the proposed Moscow Olympics.

The Soviet Games site construction costs are estimated at $A400m. This is less than half the amount incurred by the Munich and Montreal Olympic committees. The cost will be covered by world television rights- that is, if the Games go on. Soviet Army conscripts who are paid $A20 a month and young communist league volunteers have performed much of the construction work. This investment has been designed not only for the visiting participating nations but also for the Soviet and Soviet bloc citizens. What better demonstration of revulsion can there be than when a host who is giving a party designed to impress has no guests of honour turn up? The Russian propaganda machine would certainly find it difficult then to keep from its citizens the facts of its naked aggression against a country such as Afghanistan and whoever might be next in its scheme of things to come.

Australia’s athletes have done well and, at times, not so well in the competitive nature of the Olympic Games over the years. They have performed not only as individuals but also as members of the Australian team and thus as representatives of all Australians. Members of the team represent those athletes who have been unsuccessful in gaining a place in the team. They represent those other Australians who have for years been supporters of the athletes, helping them to reach a pinnacle of performance to gain such representative status. They represent all Australians- those voluntary workers, those sponsors of events, those individual donors of equipment and funds, and particularly those people who provide all athletes with that one undeniable ingredient, moral support. These people- those same people that the selected athletes represent- have, in the majority, expressed a desire to let the world know that Australia does not agree to this recognition of a country that invades a neighbour, that murders its men, women and children and that, in every likelihood, intends to continue on its march of naked aggression. Australia cannot condone such actions. The Labor Party, in all honesty, cannot condone such actions. The Government of Australia will not condone such actions and will take those steps necessary to demonstrate this to the Russians.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions has decided that, if there is an enforced boycott of the Olympic Games, it would support a total national boycott of Soviet trade and communication for the period of the Olympic Games. It would be particularly concerned to ban the sale of wool because, it says, it is the one commodity in which Australia is uniquely positioned to convey some significant impact to the Russians. It would review continuation of the ban after the Games in the light of circumstances. What rubbish! It is nonsense to suggest the imposition of a wool ban for perhaps only two weeks. It would make no impact at all on the Russians. We supply only 10 per cent of Russia’s total wool requirements and only about one per cent of its total fibre requirements and we do so in a year, not in a fortnight. It would have no effect at all. What stupid action on behalf of the ACTU!

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Soviet Union’s intervention in Afghanistan is not new. It first happened more than 18 months ago. What is different about the intervention by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan is that elections are now due to be held in Australia and in the United States of America this year. What is new is that the Canadian elections were held only last week. The Leader of the conservatives in Canada thought he could gain political capital by announcing that he would stop the Canadian Olympic Games team from going to the Moscow Games. He was crushingly defeated by the Canadian people. Perhaps it was not because he threatened to stop the Olympic team from going to Moscow but he certainly did not get re-elected on the plea that if returned he would prevent the athletes from going to the Moscow games.

The people who now call for a boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow are the very same ones who voted six years ago in favour of having the Games in Moscow. The Soviet Union is no different now from what it was six years ago. The people who control the Soviet Union now are the people who controlled the Soviet Union when those people who are talking about boycotting the Games made the decision to have the Games there this year.

Mr McLean:

– When was that decision made?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It was made six years ago and there has been no change in the Soviet structure since. The same people control the Politburo, the same Communist Party is in control and the same international and internal policy prevails as was the case at the time when it was decided to have the Olympic Games there. I detest the invasion of any small country by any large country. I detested and deplored the action of the United States, supported by the Liberal Government of Australia at the time, in invading Vietnam. I opposed the invasion of Cambodia by the United States. I oppose the invasion by any great country of a smaller country. But I deplore, equally, hypocrisy, double talk and split principles. We have a marvellous example of split principles, of double standards, with this Government making a great hullabaloo about stopping people from going to the Olympic Games, yet gaily producing wool for the Soviet soldiers in the Alps of Afghanistan, sending leather for Russian soldiers to have good boots, providing the Russians with wheat and meat and, worse than that, providing them with metalliferous material to make their guns, their tanks, their aeroplanes and their ammunition with which to shoot the Afghanistan people, for whom honourable members opposite pretend suddenly to have some great consideration.

Just a little while ago somebody asked: How much do they take from us? The amount that the Soviet Union takes from us in wool is very significant. I will come to the figures in a moment. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) knows that this is the Achilles heel of the Government. He knows that the people of Australia are asking: ‘Why are you stopping Australian athletes from competing in the Moscow Games while you are allowing the Russians to buy your wool, wheat, metalliferous material, leather and other things that are so vital to a war effort?’. Without warm clothes the Russians could not live in the extreme cold of Afghanistan. Yet the Government allows the Russians to buy the wool that is needed to make the warm uniforms so that their troops in Afghanistan do not die of cold. What utter hypocrisy and cant we have from this Government in these double standards. The reason the Government will not boycott the export of wool is that its farmer supporters would lose some millions of dollars. How much would they lose? Australia sent $190m worth of wool to the Soviet Union last year. The reason the Government will not stop the export of meat to the Russian soldiers in Afghanistan is that its supporters squealed to it that if it did that the price of meat would fall and they may not be able to sell it at all.

The Government will not stop selling wheat to the Soviet Union because it knows that if it stops supplying wheat to the Russian soldiers in Afghanistan now its clients in the Country Party will lose some income. The Government is not worried about principles. It is not worried about civil liberties. All it is concerned about is money and political propaganda. It asks itself: ‘How can we twist this Afghanistan thing into some new political weapon that will cause the Australian people to divert their attention away from rising inflation, high oil prices and unemployment?’ It thinks: ‘We have to get the people of Australia to stop thinking about the important things. We have to build up this ethereal thing thousands of kilometres away from us and hope that they will not turn their minds to things nearer at home. ‘ The Deputy Prime Minister knows that this is the Achilles heel of the Government. At Question Time today, similar to what he said yesterday, he said:

  1. . the Soviet Union is highly self-reliant on its own production of wool . . .

That was a lie. The Deputy Prime Minister knew that it was a lie- I will prove that it was a lie in a minute- to say that the Russians are self-reliant on the production of wool. That was deliberately said to try to deceive the Australian people into thinking that it does not matter whether we sell the wool. This is the true situation. The Soviet Union, he said, has 10 million more sheep than we have. The exact figures, which I have just taken out from the Parliamentary Library Information Service, is that the Soviet Union has 146 million sheep and goats and Australia has 134 million sheep. There is a difference of 10 million. But what the Deputy Prime Minister was not honest enough to say- he should have been because he was talking in terms of Soviet reliance upon Australian wool- was that the Soviet produces only 461,000 tonnes of wool from its 146 million sheep, whereas Australia produces 731,000 tonnes from its 134 million sheep. We have a population of 14.3 million in a warm country where wool is not so necessary, a country in which some of its women never wear wool at all on any day of the year. We are comparing that with a cold country in which wool is an absolute clothing necessity. Against our 14 million people, the Soviet Union has a population of 260 million people. Per head of population Australia produces 50.89 kilograms of wool against the Soviet’s 1.78 kilograms. Australia exports 702,000 tonnes of wool each year and of this amount–

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP
Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-No, tonnes. If the honourable member thinks it is only bales, I am telling him that it is tonnes. Australia exports 702,000 tonnes of wool. Out of this amount, $190m worth, including the wool that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) personally produces- at least, his sheep personally produce it- goes to the Soviet Union to provide the Russian soldiers invading Afghanistan with nice warm clothes so that they can get higher and higher up into the mountains without shivering. How hypocritical can we become? An amount of $190m worth of Australian wool is still going to the Soviet Union and will be going to the Soviet

Union next year, the year after and the year after that while we have the hypocrisy to try to tell the Australian people that we are dinkum in saying that the poor athletes should be denied the opportunity of showing what they can do at the Soviet Olympic Games. The Soviet produces only 5 1.6 per cent of her wool requirements. So much for the misrepresentation put to the House by the Deputy Prime Minister. No one who claims to know anything about foreign affairs ought to pretend that he is an expert on foreign affairs unless he has read Naom Chomsky’s book entitled The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism. He gives a list of the United States client states which under the military protection of the United States use torture on an administrative basis, where citizens are arrested without warrant, imprisoned without trial and tortured, and where thousands of men and women are murdered or disappear without trace. These countries are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Uruguay, to say nothing of South Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia. I wish to quote from Chomsky’s book. He states:

Although, as noted, the torture and killing of political prisoners appears to more extensive in the Free World than in the Soviet Union and its satellites, the mass media do not dramatise the abuse of individuals in our client states as they do in the case of Soviet intellectuals. Russian dissidents are international heroes, and their trials, personal and legal, and proclamations on all sorts of political and cultural issues, receive front page attention. Who has even heard the names of their vastly more numerous counterparts in the United States client states?

No one, of course. The United State ‘s support for these fascist countries constitutes a defence of client fascism, not of human rights. Intervention has always been against those seeking to overthrow military regimes no matter how corrupt or terroristic those regimes may be. It has always been on the side of those seeking to overthrow the democrats, the reformers and radicals in favour of the extreme right wing elements in the country. What did the Liberal Government do to protest about the United States invasion of Cambodia, the invasion of East Timor or the blood bath in Indonesia? What did the United States do to protest about the overthrow of the democratic Government in Chile? It could not protest because it was a party to the overthrow of that democratically elected government. What did the United States ever do to protest against the abuse of power in Iran under the Shah s regime? It did nothing because the United States multinational corporations were making billions- not millions, but billions of dollars profit every year from the abuse of civil rights in Iran. These were described and categorised only as benign blood baths. Australia and the United States are the last who ought to moralise about Soviet intervention in Afghanistan with their record of naked aggression in Vietnam and their occupation of South Vietnam. Let me quote again from Professor Chomsky’s book:

The ultimate vulgarity, perhaps, is the spectacle to which we are now being treated in the US (indeed, Western) media, where many people who supported US savagery in Indochina or perhaps finally turned against the war on “pragmatic grounds”- the United States could not reach its goals at reasonable cost- now feign outrage and indignation over oppressive or murderous acts that are in large pan a consequence of the US violence that they tolerated or supported. What they say may in fact be true- although it often is not- but it reeks of hypocrisy and opportunism. We would react no differently if some German intellectual who tolerated or supported Hitler expressed his indignation over the atrocities committed by the French resistance after liberation.

Pakistan is a cruel and corrupt military dictatorship. Should the occasion ever require I would not lift one finger to protect the dictatorship of Pakistan against some other dictatorship. I would not lift a single finger to protect the dictatorship of Saudi Arabia against any other dictatorship. I would not send one single Australian man to his grave fighting to defend the Shah of Iran or the Iran of the Shah. We ought, for once, to try to be honest. We ought to look at ourselves before we point the finger of scorn at the Soviet Union. That does not mean that because we have been corrupt and cruel we ought to support others who do the same, but at least we ought to be honest and to stop being hypocritical.

Mr SHORT:
Ballarat

-This debate is the most important debate on international affairs and on their domestic implications that we have had in this Parliament for more than a decade, and arguably for many years more than that. It is taking place after several years of changing balance of global power where the former nuclear and conventional military superiority of the West has been essentially eliminated. It is taking place a decade after the Vietnam war, a war the most tragic and dangerous aftermath of which may well have been the degree to which it sapped the confidence and the will of the West. It comes after more than two decades of progressive appeasement by the West to the quite naked and blatant aggressive expansion of the Soviet Union and its satellites in Asia, Africa, Indonesia, the Middle East and other areas. It is not, as the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) claimed before, a short term crisis. It is part of a much longer term crisis.

Before I turn to the facts of the Afghanistan situation and its implications, I want to put two simple propositions to this House. The first is that the free world, not just the West but the Third World too, must now say to the communist world and in particular to the Soviet Union: ‘Enough is enough; any further and we shall use military force to prevent your continued aggression’. Otherwise I have very grave doubts that there will still be a free world by the turn of this century, or before. The second proposition is that for the free world to be strong in an effective rejection of Soviet aggression the United States of America must be strong.

The United States has borne an enormous burden on behalf of the free world for over 30 years now. That is a long time. It is easy to run out of steam a bit over such a period, particularly when, as has been the case, the United States has as often been vilified for carrying this burden on our behalf as it has been praised. If we want the United States to be our front runner, to be the free world leader, we must support her, not only in private but publicly as well. The United States cannot do it all on her own, nor should she be expected to. She needs the support of her Western allies and her Third World and other free world allies. She has the right to expect such support. If we cannot give the United States that support now, when will we ever do so? The immediate stimulus to today’s debate has been the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. The real genesis for the debate extends right back to the 1940s and the Soviet Union’s continual aggression in the intervening years.

The facts of the Afghanistan situation are clear. In the final week of December last year the Soviet Union used very substantial military might to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the existing Government and instal a puppet government of its own choosing. What is less clear than these facts are the motives for the Soviet Union’s taking this unprecedented action. It is unprecedented because this is the first time that the Soviet Union has sent its own combat forces beyond the Red Army’s 1945 high water mark in Eastern Europe. There are several possible motives for this brutal use of force. The invasion could be a precursor to a further sweep south through Pakistan to secure a warm water port on the Indian Ocean; or it could be a precursor to a sweep into Iran to secure control over that nation’s vital oil reserves; or it could be further to secure the Soviet Union’s own southern flank; or to foster increased instability in Pakistan; and /or to heighten tensions between India and Pakistan. Each one of these possible motives has great significance for the free world.

Whatever the motives, the Soviet Union must have deemed them very important to have run such an enormous risk to world peace, unless the Soviets actually wanted the existing global situation to deteriorate. Major implications for the world have emerged from the Soviet aggression. The action has created a new danger of successful Soviet adventurism in the strategically vitally important Middle East region. The invasion has enormously increased the Soviet Union’s leverage against the shaky government in Iran. Indeed direct Soviet intervention in Iran would surely trigger off a third world war. The Soviet Union has also strengthened its hand against the at-risk government in Pakistan. The very dismemberment of both Iran and Pakistan cannot entirely be discounted and the prospects of the Soviet Union’s emerging as a power in the Indian Ocean has been significantly increased.

However one interprets the motives for the Afghanistan invasion it is indisputable that none of them adds up to anything less than a cause for heightened concern about the prospects for lasting global peace. The Afghanistan invasion has set back the cause of peace by many years. The critical question is how the free world, not only the industrialised West but the Third World as well, should react to the situation now confronting it. The West has, predictably I guess, savagely condemned the invasion. Perhaps of even more significance to the Soviet Union is the strong condemnation by some of its traditional friends and from many Third World countries. The invasion has been massively rejected by the United Nations General Assembly, the Islamic nations, the European Economic Community and many others. Are mere words and United Nations resolutions enough? My answer, and as I understand it the Government’s answer, is an unequivocal no. Words are not enough. History may indeed record that the reason why the Soviet Union took its brutal plunge into Afghanistan was because the free world had, for many years beforehand, used only words to protect against the insidious, brutal and relentless creep of Marxist Leninism across the globe.

Mr Howe:

– What is the free world?

Mr SHORT:

– The honourable member would not know much about it. Quite bluntly, the Soviet Union is well on the way towards winning World War III without even a shot being fired by the major contestants. Why is this happening? Have we in the West been blind to the naked expansion of Soviet influence throughout the world? Have we not noticed the build up of the Soviet Navy and other Soviet conventional forces? Have we not known of the massive increase in Soviet nuclear capacity? Have we not appreciated that the Soviet Union has been permitted to establish bases in Libya, Ethiopia, Iraq and South Yemen, whilst in contrast the United States has no land base in North Africa close to the Red Sea and to the Arabian peninsula; or is it rather that whilst recognising that these developments have been occurring the West has based its dealings with the Soviet Union on some naive wishful thinking? Is it that we have not believed that Mr Brezhnev’s constant reiteration of Marxist-Leninist doctrine means what it says? Have we forgotten the basic Soviet objective of domination over a Marxist liberated world, an objective that has remained unaltered and undiminished since the 1917 revolution? Do we not listen when Mr Brezhnev concludes his speeches with the cry: ‘Long live peace. Long live communism’? In Soviet philosophy the two, peace and communism, are indivisible.

Lenin put it with brutal frankness and clarity. He said that wars cannot be abolished unless socialism is created. This is the Soviet rationale for its aggressive adventurism. It is quite clear for us to see if we want to see it. Do we want to see it, or has the West somehow run out of ideological steam? I believe that we do still believe in democracy, individual human rights and freedom of enterprise, but I also believe that unless we in the free world urgently and dramatically recast our basic approach towards communism, and particularly, though not exclusively, Soviet communism, our days of freedom and democratic institutions are limited. We must condemn the Afghanistan invasion. But good may come from evil. It may just be that it is the Afghanistan rape that has at last made the free world wake up to itself, wake up to the great danger in which it is placed. It may just be that we will recall the words of Churchill after Munich in the 1930s when he said:

The counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger . . . how the middle course, adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life, may be seen to lead direct to the bull’s eye of disaster.

Churchill was right. We must never forget that lesson of history. I fear that the free world in recent years has done just that. What does the free world need to do to redress this potentially fatal situation? What should Australia’s role be in this? First and foremost, I believe the free world must seek to regain the initiative in the never ceasing battle for the hearts and minds of people. We must go on to the offensive both psychologically and politically. We must get through to the oppressed and the poor throughout the world that our system is better than the brutal dead hand of communism and socialism. We must serve notice on Moscow that the free world has a new resolve to stop further Soviet expansion. Moscow has thrived on Western inaction and apparently declining will since at least Vietnam, and we must impress upon Moscow that that has changed and that we mean it. The free world’s whole military posture must change, and quickly. We can no longer afford the luxury of a strategically defensive posture. As we let pass each issue on which a stand should have been made in years past, so the cost and risk of subsequently standing firm escalates. If the free world cannot determine its correct and meaningful priorities now, at what point will we face them? Or by then will it be too late? It is for this reason that I support the Government’s wish that Australia not participate in the Moscow Olympics. From reading the Australian Press or listening to the Labor Party one could be forgiven for gaining the impression that Australia is virtually alone in its support for the United States Government on this matter. This is patently not so. More than 30 governments around the world have echoed similar views, and so have men like Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov and Ginsberg- men like the former Labour Deputy Prime Minister of Britain, Lord George Brown, who said in the House of Lords last week:

  1. . to go to the Moscow Olympics while the present situation persists would be an obscene farce.

Many figures directly involved in sport have supported a boycott of the Moscow Olympics, people like Olympic swimming coach Forbes Carlile and the captain of our Olympic swimming team, people like former great Australian Olympians, Laurie Morgan and John Konrads and others. Nor is the Opposition opposite united behind Mr Hayden ‘s strident personal abuse of the Prime Minister over his advocacy of a boycott. The Labor shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), had the courage to stand in this House earlier this week and say it is quite clear that the Moscow Olympics should be boycotted. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) is schizophrenic on the matter. In the course of his hour long, personally abusive and completely negative and destructive diatribe on Tuesday in this House he said:

An effective boycott would have embarrassed the Soviet Union deeply and could have been expected to drive home to many of her own people the point that the invasion of Afghanistan was repugnant to and rejected by most countries of the world.

I agree with that. Yet two brief paragraphs later in his speech the Labor leader said: ‘Labor opposes the boycott. ‘ What consistency. What a model of heir apparent leadership the honourable member for Oxley brings to this chamber. This is another example of his comforting consistency. He said in the same statement that the Australian Government did not seek to organise a boycott. Two paragraphs later he said: ‘The Government’s behaviour in attempting to organise a boycott is particularly offensive’. How could anyone credit that the alternative Prime Minister of this nation could be so dangerously inconsistent? How could anyone in this nation believe that the Opposition in this House would spend the whole of this debate, in major respect excusing and providing excuses for the brutal invasion of Afghanistan that has taken place, denying the significance of the invasion for freedom, world peace and stability. Yet that is precisely what the Opposition has been doing.

The Prime Minister has been devoting his energies towards attempting to secure an effective boycott of the Moscow Olympics because it would demonstrate more forcibly to the Soviet Union than any other measure- I repeat, any other measure- that the free world is no longer prepared to tolerate its expansionist, militarist excesses. The Prime Minister deserves great credit for his stand. He has had the courage to assist America in providing firm leadership to the free world at a time of critical importance for the future of the free world. What opponents of a boycott seem to me to overlook is the fact that the Soviet Union wants the Games primarilyand has said so publicly- to lend validity to the concept of communism as compared with our democratic institutions. The Prime Minister may fail in his attempt to encourage the world, to have an effective boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games. If he does he will be very disappointed, as will the Government, but at least he will be able to walk tall. I wonder how many other leaders of this nation or the world will be able to do so? Certainly not the people opposite in this chamber.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is still warning us that the world faces the most dangerous crisis since World War II. In this predictably servile and rigid endorsement of President Carter’s rhetoric, he must be seen as drawing a very long bow indeed. We in the Opposition find Soviet imperialism as obnoxious as the United States variety, but it is incorrect to pose the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as the greatest threat to world peace since 1945. We have survived Suez and Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, the United States ‘ and Australia ‘s intervention in

Vietnam, the Berlin Blockade and the 1961 Cuban crisis. I have no doubt that more mature and sincere men than Carter and Fraser can prevent a nuclear holocaust on this occasion.

Australia is best served by an independent foreign policy based on facts or potential danger to Australia. Within this context there may be a case for upgrading our defence capacity. But this Government has not even followed through its own White Paper conclusions. It is still 7 per cent below estimated expenditure for new equipment in 1979-80. The Prime Minister seeks now to use the revenue from his discriminatory oil and petrol tax to enable the financing of a crash purchase program of expensive military hardware from overseas.

The Prime Minister wants to ban Australian olympians from Moscow and simultaneously to promote wool, wheat and mineral sales to Russia. It was only this morning that the Prime Minister shocked this House when he sat stonyfaced as is his wont- and refused to deny that currently wool from Nareen is being handled by CIL and John Sanderson and Co. (Wool) Pty Ltd at Portland, Victoria en route to the Soviet Union. If that charge was not correct why did the Prime Minister sit there and refuse to take the opportunity to deny it?

He flirts with the idea of a free world Olympics, perhaps in Montreal, Melbourne or wherever. As one scribe stated: ‘An alternative Olympic Games, well, that is a little bit like Bart Cummings boycotting the Melbourne Cup and taking his Cup hopes to Wyong on Cup Day’. Now the Prime Minister must contend with Trudeau’s magnificent victory in Canada. There is no longer a guarantee that Canada will impose an Olympic boycott or even participate in the staging of alternative games as Trudeau favours continuing detente, as does Western Europe. The Prime Minister would have Australia join a futile boycott with the United States, perhaps the United Kingdom and just a few other client states of the United States. He wants to ban Russian cruise ships from our area, but not until the cruise season is over. The Russian cargo line Fresco, which undercuts Australian National Line and world rates by 20 per cent, will still carry Australia’s primary goods overseas, perhaps even to Russia.

Will the Soviets perhaps impose their own trade sanctions when it suits them? The Prime Minister is counting the cost of his sabre rattling to the nation in terms of taxpayers’ funds siphoned into defence needs, but the hidden costs will be the future loss of trade that could result from these Government postures. The national response to the action in Afghanistan should be based upon proper assessments of motive and result.

Why did the Russians invade Afghanistan? The Prime Minister says that it is because Soviet communism is expansionary and because Russia hopes to cut off Western oil supplies to the West from the Persian Gulf oil states. This view is not shared at all by Western European leaders or Japan. Their communiques are stronger than their actions. They are not endorsing an Olympic boycott or imposing trade limitations. On the contrary, they seek to expand trade with the Soviet Union. The President of France still espouses detente, and little wonder. The Common Market economies are heavily interwoven with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Last year the Common Market received 7 per cent of its natural gas from the Soviet Union by pipeline. Austria received 50 per cent. By 1985 France plans to import 30 per cent of its natural gas needs from the Soviet Union.

While the Prime Minister of Australia was urging an Olympic boycott on Helmut Schmidt, a high level West German delegation was in Moscow to plan the construction of yet another gas pipeline to supply Soviet gas to Western Europe, and to be constructed with steel from German mills. Honourable members opposite delude themselves that other countries will engage in a futile Olympic boycott when this sort of trade is at stake. The Common Market depends upon nuclear power for 10 per cent of its electricity requirements and 35 per cent of its enriched uranium comes from the Soviet Union. Forty per cent of Common Market coal comes from Poland and the Soviet Union. The Soviet bloc owes Western banks $47 billion; and $13 billion of that is owed to the Bundesbank, the central bank of West Germany. Five per cent of Common Market oil supplies come from the Soviet Union, 1.3 million barrels per day and yet another 1.5 million barrels of Soviet oil goes to Eastern Europe. These oil exports are equal to a massive 33 per cent of total United States imports of 8.5 million barrels a day. This shows the logic of the proposal. The Soviet Union will earn $25 billion for these oil exports to Europe in 1 980, and it needs the foreign exchange. But it would be far simpler and less destructive for the Soviet Union, if it wished to disrupt Western oil supplies, to cut off oil exports and to force Western Europe and even its own Eastern bloc onto world oil markets, rather than risk World War III by occupying oil states such as Iran, or by blockading the Straits of Hormuz. These actions would lead to World War III and Russia knows it. So why invade Afghanistan?

My New South Wales State parliamentary colleague, George Petersen, said that events in Hungary in 1956, events in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and events in Afghanistan in 1980 demonstrate that the most dangerous place to be a communist leader is in a country that borders the Soviet Union. I believe that he is right because history shows that. Certainly Russia has assumed the right to dominate her neighbours. It was the old Russian sphere of influence argument versus American universalism which, after World War II, set the stage for the Cold War of the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. I am reminded of the words of the American academic professor, Arthur Schlesinger who was prompted to write some years ago of the failure of post-war United States-Soviet foreign policy in these terms:

For the next fifteen years the Cold War raged unabated, passing out of historical ambiguity into the realm of good versus evil and breeding on both sides simplifications, stereotypes and self-serving absolutes . . .

Read that expression in relation to this Government and the Prime Minister. He continued:

Under the pressure America, for a deplorable decade, forsook its pragmatic and pluralistic traditions, posed as God’s appointed messenger to ignorant and sinful man and followed the Soviet example in looking to a world remade in its own image.

Those remarks very pertinently outlined the failure of United States and Soviet foreign policy since World War II. The actions in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan are, and were, reprehensible, but so were the actions in Vietnam, Chile and East Timor. Proximity should not excuse aggression as part of the sphere of influence argument but the universal interventionism of the United States is even more provocative and has the added disadvantage of involvement in conflict further from home. The Prime Minister must realise that Russian expansionism did not occur just after 1945.

I recommend a simple reading of Firuz Kazamzadhu’s article in the National Times recently which should convince even the Prime Minister that the Russians have been encroaching south and east into Turkman, Georgia and Merve since 1801. The time has come for an end to imperialism of both Russia and the United States, or detente will be a mere interlude in a cold war that will terminate either by escalation into a blazing hot war or by the settlement of the issues in conflict at the conference table. Relations between the super powers have moved through three areas since ‘945. Immediately after World War II the possession of the bomb solely by the United States encouraged a tough United States line in early post-war conferences. Then Russia also produced the bomb and the nuclear arms missile race was born. So came the period of the balance of terror based on mutually assured destruction in the event of a nuclear war. But perhaps now the Soviets have the edge in nuclear weapons and they certainly do in conventional forces. They have 4.3 million people in their armed forces, twice the level of the United States, and 1.6 million under arms compared with 220,000 under arms for the United States. But the United States does have predominance in tactical nuclear weapons. It is absolutely reprehensible that the Australian Prime Minister allowed himself to be used by the Carter Administration to promote the idea that the United States may resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons to counteract Soviet conventional military superiority and the advantage of shorter supply lines.

What does the Prime Minister think the use of tactical nuclear weapons would lead to? Does he imagine that the Soviets would accept the huge manpower losses inflicted by tactical nuclear weapons? What does he feel their response would be? Would it be to wipe out a United States city and assure the mutual destruction of their own Soviet cities? In the Prime Minister’s jargon, perhaps a measured response would be deemed appropriate, such as wiping out the United States bases in a third country. The Prime Minister should ponder the implications of that scenario. I am glad to see that the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) does not share the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. I wish to quote from an interview with the Federal Minister for Defence which appeared several weeks ago in the Sydney Morning Herald. It was put to him:

There have been suggestions during the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington that the US would be prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if the Kremlin moved into the Persian Gulf area. In what circumstances would the US use tactical nuclear weapons?

The Minister replied: . . that would be an awesome decision to take. For my part I see no prospect of a limited nuclear war. I think once we start down that track, then I think we are looking at the end.

I have never taken an apocalyptic view of life, nor indeed of the world, but I remain deeply convinced that the prospects of mankind surviving a nuclear holocaust are minimal.

There is a philosophy that holds that you can have a limited nuclear war. I don ‘t subscribe to it.

I commend the Minister for Defence for those words. It is a pity that the Prime Minister does not take the same view. The truth is that under the new foreign policy of Prime Minister Fraser and President Carter, the United States faces the worst of all possible worlds in the Persian Gulf and the Near East- commitment to an arms build-up by an unstable military regime in Pakistan; an inability to influence events in Afghanistan; conflict with resurgent Islam in Iran; and continued coolness from Arab oil states as a result of United States support for Israeli intransigence regarding the establishment of a Palestinian homeland on the West Bank.

In this election year our Prime Minister decided that President Carter needed his assistance, although the President seemed to me to be doing all right, at least from an electoral point of view, because he has reversed a hefty deficit against Teddy Kennedy in the opinion polls since the invasion of Afghanistan. However, our Prime Minister wanted to assist and so he invited himself to Washington. Urgent requests were made for him to be received by the Chancellor of West Germany and the President of France. But the West Europeans made it abundantly clear that the Prime Minister was being received at his own request and that the talks were expected to be less than vitally important. It is for the sheer misrepresentation of the European position, stated in his European Press conferences and again in this Parliament, that the Prime Minister deserves the condemnation of the House. He has said that the West European leaders are in accord with Mr Carter and himself. That is untrue. The Europeans have not and probably will not endorse a boycott of the Olympic Games. As I have said, they will expand trade, particularly in the energy and technology areas. They carefully avoided joint Press conferences with our Prime Minister. President Giscard of France said:

If everybody is to join a block, it will make the international tension worse. The insistence of some countries on an alignment with one or the other super-powers means less possibility of manoeuvre.

Mr Schmidt called for some well considered crisis management and a calm approach. ‘This is not synonomous with pussy-footing’, he said. He went on to say that it was very easy for the Australian Prime Minister to engage in rhetorical abuse as Australia was the safest country in the world. Mr Schmidt’s statements were quoted in prominent European newspapers.

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

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Health · Warringah · LP

– What we have just heard from the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) really amounts to nothing more nor less than an apologia for the Soviet Union. I regret that -

Mr West:

-That is rot.

Mr MacKELLAR:

-The honourable member may say that it is rot but if he reads the speech closely he will find that time after time the inference is there that it is quite understandable that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should take the action it has.

I want to start my remarks by addressing myself to the motion moved by the Opposition as an amendment to the motion before the House. The motion of the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) disputes the contention that Afghanistan is potentially the gravest threat to international peace and security since 1945. It is true that there have been other very serious crises in international relations during the post-war years involving the risk of nuclear confrontation. However, Afghanistan is a crisis of a different order. There, for the first time since the Second World War, the Soviet Union has used its own armed forces outside the Warsaw Pact area for expansionist purposes. Thus it has established a precedent that challenges the independence of all nations. Moreover, a Soviet lodgment in Afghanistan would threaten the security of the oil supplies in the Persian Gulf area on which the world’s industrial economy depends. It is for those reasons and the consequences that would flow from them that the Soviet invasion so gravely threatens international peace and security.

The Opposition’s amendment expresses concern at the possibility that the limitation of strategic arms might be abandoned and an uncontrolled arms race resumed. That of course is to be applauded, but the onus for the resumption of the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty talks rest squarely with the Soviet Union. Its oppressive policies at home and challenging behaviour abroad, culminating in the invasion of Afghanistan, have made the United States Senate ratification of SALT II politically impossible, and that will remain the case until the Soviets show restraint and draw back from aggression. The remedy is quite clearly in Soviet hands.

The Government has always recognised the serious problems in Australia’s own region, and that is related to point 7 of the Opposition’s amendment. In this region the Vietnamese are acting as willing agents of Soviet pressure. It is the Vietnamese- armed, encouraged and sustained by the Soviet Union- who have sought to reduce Laos and Kampuchea to satellite status, who more widely threaten regional peace and security, and who permit the Soviet Union’s access to bases. Australia borders the Indian Ocean, where the repercussions of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan are acutely felt. Directly and indirectly, events in Afghanistan affect the security of our, region. The Government favours the establishment of a neutral and independent Kampuchea, free from great power rivalries. It considers that a negotiated settlement in which all interested parties are represented will be necessary to bring peace to Kampuchea. However, there is little prospect of successfully convening a conference on Kampuchea in the near future. Any proposal that was put forward prematurely and without adequate consultation would prove counter-productive.

As to the Opposition’s claim that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is employing double standards in relations to sanctions against the Soviet Union, the Government’s interest is to identify measures that will effectively penalise the Soviet Union. There is no point in empty gestures that would be more damaging to Australia ‘s interests than to those of the USSR. A trade embargo would be costly to Australia because others would be likely to replace our trade and, as such, it would not affect the Soviet Union very much. A successful boycott of the Moscow Olympics would be very painful to the Soviet Union and would most effectively register with the Russian people international disapproval of Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. For those and other reasons, the Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the Opposition.

What the Opposition is attempting to do in this debate is to divert attention from the significance to the whole world- that very much includes Australia- of Russia’s blatant aggression in Afghanistan. Instead of focussing on this point, it has attempted to muddy the waters by setting out reasons- one might even say excuses- for Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan and has questioned the reasons for this Government’s strong response to that invasion. The Opposition would have us believe that Russia’s move into Afghanistan is of little significance to Australia and that our reactions should be framed accordingly. This position was spelt out graphically by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), a man who sees himself as a future leader of the Australian Labor Party, when he said in Sydney in January, speaking of the Afghan crisis:

It is so far away from our area of interest and Australia is not threatened so we should leave it to the big powers.

Nobody in this House will forget the response of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) to the statement of the honourable member for Blaxland He drew very clear attention to that attitude, which coincided very closely with the words used by Neville Chamberlain to play down Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia. As honourable members will recall, Chamberlain referred to this blatant aggression as ‘a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing’. That is very reminiscent of the words used by the honourable member for Blaxland.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is a very serious matter indeed for Australia as it threatens international peace and security. The Soviet action challenges the independence of all nations. It has swept away the illusions of detente and has put beyond all doubt that the relaxation of international tensions depends on the USSR first showing restraint. The Soviet Union has taken advantage of the ‘-yearning for peace throughout the world- in the. form of detente- to promote its interests and expand its power ruthlessly. Russia has seen the United States’ moves to reduce international tension as a sign of weakness and has sought to take’ advantage of this. But now Russia has over-reached itself. Afghanistan has exposed for all to see the true character of Soviet ambitions and the utter cynicism of Soviet behaviour.

International reaction to this blatant aggression has been swift and impressive. Because of its actions in Afghanistan the Soviet Union has found itself internationally isolated. Its prestige and good standing has been shattered in the eyes of nations that it most wants to influence- the Third World and non-aligned countries. The warning is horrific, but it is also very valuable. It has put the Soviet Union on notice that it can no longer pursue expansionist policies over large areas of the world with impunity and that a high price must be paid for such totally unacceptable conduct. For all independent nations, Afghanistan has been salutory, because it has unambiguously pointed up the real threat to their independence. Having aroused them to the danger, Afghanistan also underlines the need for resolution over the long-term to match that of the Soviets, whose greatest asset is their persistence.

Unfortunately, as the Prime Minister pointed out on Tuesday, experience in earlier crises has demonstrated that the attention span of world opinion is limited and that what is initially regarded as outrageous can quite quickly become acceptable, if only in a spirit of resignation. That must not happen now. If Russia sees the storm of protest quickly blow itself out, then this experience has within it the seeds of disaster for us all.

The world’s action against Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan and steps to ensure that the USSR does not continue on its expansionist path must be led by the United States. The military power of the United States is vital in balancing and checking that of the Soviet Union. Russia’s military might has grown persistently and rapidly to dangerously high levels and still continues to expand despite the USSR’s past public endorsements of the concept of detente. The Western allies naturally look to the leadership of the United States as the most powerful among them in matching the Soviet challenge, and we should be heartened by the perceptible signs of resurgence of American will and determination after the twin traumas of Vietnam and Watergate.

At the same time there is recognition that American leadership must be sustained both by the willing support of its allies and by joint effort. In saying this, I am not advocating that we blindly follow the foreign policy course set by the United States. In this case we support America’s position because we are in full agreement with its views and perceptions of the Afghanistan crisis. An essential part of our strategy must be to recognise how wide the common interest is in meeting the Soviet challenge, and to develop it accordingly. Thus Australia’s response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has been varied and many-sided. We have taken deliberate steps to limit bilateral relations with the Soviet Union; we have supported multilateral actions to register disapproval and penalise the Soviet Union, including in relation to grain sales and the Olympic Games; we have engaged in important and wide-ranging consultations with friends and allies; and we are taking concrete measures to enhance our defence and diplomatic efforts. We have reacted- but we have not over-reacted. Our response has been deliberate and thought through, based not on emotion, but on a detailed assessment of the facts. Australia, while limited in its power and population, has an important contribution to make, particularly within its region.

The countries of the Indian sub-continent and the South East Asia region are now experiencing the effects of Soviet expansionist pressure, directly or obliquely. What they think and feel, and how they react in this situation, is of vital concern to Australia because these countries constitute the permanent foreground of our foreign policy. We have consulted them closely about the implications of Afghanistan, and of other disturbing pressures in the region. As honourable members would expect, perceptions of the situation and their mode of expression vary, in keeping with the different interests, style and identity of the individual countries. But despite these differences it is strikingly evident that the brutal and undisguised Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has sent Shockwaves through the region, as indeed it has right throughout the international community. The Soviet account of events in Afghanistan is simply not accepted in the region. Soviet forces did not invade Afghanistan and kill its procommunist President to guard against some unsubstantiated external threat. They were forced to secure a regime that would immediately collapse without Soviet support because it is hateful to the Afghan people. Since the April 1978 coup in Kabul, Soviet propaganda about external interference in Afghanistan has had the cynical purpose of excusing and justifying the harshness of the new communist order. It is now clear that it had the additional purpose of paving the way for direct Soviet intervention intended to replace an intractable client ruler with another more pliable puppet. In a most dangerous extension of the Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty of Soviet allies to a Third World country, it also aimed to reduce Afghanistan to satellite status, in keeping with Soviet action elsewhere.

For the regional countries, as for Australia, debates about Soviet motives are less relevant than is coming to terms with the consequences of the Soviet action, which has driven a wedge into a strategically sensitive area. By invading Afghanistan, the Soviets have brought themselves hundreds of kilometres closer to the Indian Ocean and into a situation in which they can bring pressure to bear simultaneously on the sub-continent and on oil producing areas of the Gulf. The advance of the Soviet presence into that region has already created destabilising pressures. It will also afford the Soviet Union rich opportunities to advance its interests by means of subversion and, if the Soviets think circumstances allow, by direct intervention.

Developments in Afghanistan bear most directly on the Indian sub-continent, where there is a risk that they may stimulate old animosities and create new problems. India’s perspectives and its interests differ appreciably from those of Pakistan. I would not deny the importance of this situation, the complications that it could breed and the risk that it might divert attention from the central issue of Soviet expansionism. Pakistan is in an exposed position and has a legitimate claim to assistance from its friends, including Australia. We have discussed with President Zia the possibility of increasing our economic assistance to Pakistan. At the same time, we recognise that the response to Pakistan’s needs should take due account of Indian sensitivities. Pakistan sees itself as directly threatened by developments in Afghanistan, whereas India fears that its security will be jeopardised by the arming of Pakistan. In these circumstances, steps to strengthen the security of Pakistan should be such as not to arouse unnecessary Indian apprehension. The highest importance attaches to sustaining a dialogue between India and Pakistan that will provide mutual reassurance. India and Pakistan share a basic interest in insulating the sub-continent from great power rivalry. It is to be hoped that they will build on this interest.

The invasion of Afghanistan is not seen as an isolated episode. In the minds of regional leaders, it is clearly linked with events elsewhere, particularly in Kampuchea where the Vietnamese occupation of that country depends on the massive volume of supplies provided by the Soviet Union, mainly in the form of arms and equipment. Kampuchea and Afghanistan are both regarded as points of Soviet strategic pressure on the region, and the Soviet capability to administer pressure in widely distant areas is seen to afford the Soviets important strategic flexibility. On the part of some Association of South East Asian Nations countries there is concern that the situation in Afghanistan might be allowed to overshadow the continuing seriousness of the problems affecting Kampuchea.

The strong position taken by the Australian Government on Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan has been criticised in some quarters as being inconsistent with our reaction to Indonesia’s actions in East Timor. That is not the case. What these critics fail to acknowledge is the fact that this Government strongly criticised Indonesia’s actions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I think it is important, when we are speaking to the motion which was moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) on 19 February, and to the amendment moved by the Opposition-which differs only in some sections from the original motionthat we try to keep out feet on the ground. I know that this is an election year and that there is a tendency to use almost anything that occurs anywhere in the world for the purpose of gaining votes. We do not want the hysteria of a khaki election based on making people scared. We do not particularly want to see, nor do I think that the Government would want to see, a green and gold election, based on the sending of an Australian team to the Olympic Games. It is an hysterical attitude and no rational, good results will flow from it. My own view is that we ought to be considering what significant changes have occurred in the world because of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and treating them with common sense.

I strongly support the amendment of the Opposition in respect, first, of the deletion of the words ‘potentially the gravest threat to international peace and security since 1945.’ It is quite silly to talk like that. When we recall what happened in Cuba, or in Berlin, it is quite silly to describe the position in Afghanistan as comparable. Afghanistan did not come as a surprise. As one who is interested in these topics, I read a magazine that is published in the United States by, I believe, the State Department, called Problems of Communism. It comprises fairly academic contributions on the subject and the JulyAugust issue of last year contained an article entitled ‘Afghanistan Under the Khalq’ by Louis Dupree, who is the representative of the American University’s field staff in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It stated quite clearly that there was a likelihood of a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I will not go into any more detail than that. It is an interesting and intelligently written article.

Mr MacKellar:

– But it does not justify what happened.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I am not justifying it. I am referring to the sudden hysteria about the invasion of Afghanistan.

Mr Viner:

– But it has happened.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I know that, but intelligent people have been predicting it for the last year or so. The article to which I have referred was obviously written in about March. No one on this side of the chamber is attempting to justify the action of the Soviet Union. I am merely criticising the proposition that that action suddenly presents the gravest threat to international peace and security since 1945. It does not. From a long-term view- and I would like honourable members to consider Australia’s position, the future of the world as a whole and the question of peace and war- the Soviet action has been helpful to us.

That is my personal belief. It is one of the greatest mistakes that the Russians have committed for a considerable period of time, possibly since the invasion of Czechoslovakia, possibly in the whole of its history. If we look at the net effect of what the Soviet Union has done, it has occupied Afghanistan. I am not one of those who believe that the Soviet Union is going to fail in the way the United States did in Vietnam. People who try to compare the two positions are being fairly simplistic. I do not believe that the reaction to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics action in Afghanistan will be as effective as was that of the Vietnamese, or sections of the Vietnamese, visavis the United States.

Much more important than that was the fact that the United States was a democracy when it invaded Vietnam, and every night on television one could see the horror of the war that was taking place there. After some time a significant proportion, maybe the majority, of the United States population decided that it was not worthwhile going on. They did not want to participate in it and exerted much pressure to remove United States troops from Vietnam. That was the end of Vietnam as far as the United States was concerned. That is not happening, nor is it likely to happen in the USSR. The USSR is a dictatorship. No unfavourable news about what happens in Afghanistan will appear on its television. There is obviously little room for pressure to be exerted on the Government of the USSR, if only because it is a dictatorship. Therein lies a very significant difference. Those who believe that democracy is one of the most important things that man can have, in that it enables one to exert an influence on the way in which he is governed, et cetera, must also understand that it carries with it certain disadvantages in a warlike situation. It would be silly to pretend otherwise. Conversely, dictatorships have certain advantages in such a situation. But surely no one would wish to give up the advantages of living in a democracy merely because of the disadvantages it presents in respect of preparedness for war. That is an important point to make. It is silly for the Government to exaggerate the position that exists there.

Also, in the last few years the general tilt and direction of what was happening in the world had been going against us quite significantly. It was depressing to see the number of countries at the United Nations and elsewhere who were openly, or not so openly, associating or identifying with the Soviet leadership. In the last year or so, we had the non-aligned nations acting under the leadership of Cuba, which obviously is itself not non-aligned but rather a satellite of the Soviet Union. The last non-aligned conference in Havana expressed to a large extent the views of the Soviet Union. If someone had said on I December 1979 that you could have a resolution passed in the United Nations by 104 votes to 18 condemning the Soviet Union on any issue, we would not have believed it to be possible. If the Soviet Union had even taken Dr Kurt Waldheim hostage you would not have got 104 votes to 18. The Soviet Union’s supporters would have thought of some excuse for its action. Yet, within a very few weeks, the whole position changed, particularly insofar as the so-called Islamic nations are concerned. At present they are very important in the equilibrium, or disequilibrium which exists in world politics. Let us look at the position intelligently from that point of view.

Let me deal now with some of the hypocrisy to which we refer in our amendment, the last point of which condemns the double standard that has been applied by the Prime Minister in sanctions against the Soviet Union by harassing Australian athletes while permitting continued trade. I am not disputing for one minute that for a long time the Prime Minister has adopted a certain attitude vis-a-vis the Soviet Union- one with which I do not completely disagree- but in this matter he was playing it for politics also. The Government was winning, or appeared to be, until such time as it reversed its decision regarding the export of rutile. It suddenly became a complete joke. We had a government which claimed that the Soviet Union was about to go to war with us. Rutile, a metal important to the war effort of the Soviet Union, was temporarily banned on the decision of Cabinet during the absence of the Prime Minister, but when he returned the Cabinet decided that rutile could again be exported to the Soviet Union. It was utter and complete hypocrisy.

I was associated with a previous example of that hypocrisy and I wish to remind the House of it. I was a member of the Sub-committee on Human Rights in the USSR, a part of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. We were informed by a senior member of the Australian Legation in Moscow that the Australian Government had been advised in February of 1978 that no member of that sub-committee could be a member of a parliamentary delegation which was to visit the USSR later that year. The Australian Government was aware of that but continued to accept that particular invitation for a parliamentary delegation. It did not have the courtesy to tell this House which, I am sure, would have voted overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, that it would not participate in sending any delegation to the USSR if such restrictions were placed on its membership. Yet the Government went ahead with it. We have now an example of utter and complete hypocrisy on the part of this Government in an attempt to win votes. It has acted in a way that even pro-Soviet governments, in many ways, would not have been prepared to emulate. I think it is extremely important that we do not forget what is happening in the Soviet Union. I draw the attention of the House to the plea by Mrs Sakharov who last week said:

My husband’s life now hinges on your determination … as soon as you forget about him and fall silent, they will make short work of him.

We have to remember that. Our duty to people in other countries is to remind them continuously of what is happening in the Soviet Union.

Let me deal with one other aspect of our amendment. It refers in clause (8) to the convening of an international conference which would have the objective of demilitarising Kampuchea and allowing the people of that country to determine their own future. My view is that that should be extended to the whole of the IndoChina area. There has been a lot of hypocrisy in the discussion on Kampuchea concerning Pol Pot and the invasion of Kampuchea by Vietnam which, of course, is a satellite of the Soviet Union at present. There are people in Australia who are defending Vietnam’s invasion of Kampuchea on the basis that the Pol Pot regime in that country was an extremely unpleasant government, which is probably a significant understatement. I will pick on one such person because he annoys me particularly. I refer to one Alex Carey of the School of Psychology at the University of New South Wales. He is fairly typical of that group of people in that he tends to support the Soviet Union whatever twists and turns Soviet policy takes, although he is often a bit slow in reading the signs from the Soviet Union or, in this case, from Hanoi. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter which I wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 January 1980 dealing with the twists in his attitude to Kampuchean regimes. It was not published.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

January 3, 1980

The Editor

The Sydney Morning Herald

Press Gallery

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Sir.

Alex Carey (letters, 1/1/1980), defends Vietnam’s aggression in Kampuchea by referring to the Pol Pot regime’s murder of ‘rural’ villagers and its ‘Nazilike blood and soil nationalism’.

Is he the same Alex Carey of the School of Psychology of the University of New South Wales, who, in a letter one year ago, (SMH 9/1/1979), attacked refugee reports of ‘a satanic, pointless repressive Khmer Rouge regime ‘?

With his knowledge of Applied Psychology, he likened these reports to reports of German atrocities in Belgium during World War One, which he claims were also inventions of refugees.

Having now caught up with the ‘line’ on Vietnam’s ‘nonaggressive ‘ invasion of Kampuchea, how does he justify the presence of 40,000 Vietnamese troops in Laos? Was Laos also a threat to the gentle pacifists ruling Vietnam? (Signed)

KLUGMAN, MP

Dr KLUGMAN:

-Let me come to one of the important points that we all have to face. It is important from the point of view of the Government and from the point of view of we in the Opposition who call ourselves social democrats or democratic socialists. What can democratic nations do when faced with an aggressor? Obviously we have to be prepared as far as defence is concerned, but we must also take active positions vis-a-vis aggressive and totalitarian nations without actually threatening to go to war. It is all very well to talk about war, but war these days is a very terrible thing. I suppose it always was, but at present it seems to be even more so. We have to offer some alternatives. I believe that trade sanctions and the withdrawal of exchanges with undemocratic nations are significant ways of dealing with such countries.

I think that the people who said we should not ban exports to Chile when the Chilean Government was overthrown by a military dictatorship or who now say we should not have sanctions against the Soviet Union misinterpret what it is all about. As far as we can we have to give ‘disbenefits ‘ to other countries which act in an objectionable fashion. The Soviet Union obviously has done so and Chile has done so as far as its own people are concerned. It is terribly important for us to ask people in Australia to make sacrifices. It is easier to ask people to make sacrifices than to make sacrifices ourselves, but we must make it difficult for other countries to behave in the fashion in which the Soviet Union is behaving.

One of the most depressing things I have heard was the broadcast by the Deputy Prime Minister and right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) on the radio program AM this morning when he tried to excuse the sale of Australian wool and of other Australian goods to the USSR. I thought it was a pitiful attempt. I would like all honourable members to try to get a transcript of it. It may not read as badly as it sounded, but it sounded awful. While I am talking about the AM program, let me deal with the PM program. Last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) was refused a right of reply on the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

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

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

– It is remarkable how events in a seemingly small country can suddenly transform the world scene- sometimes for good, sometimes for ill. It has happened again in Afghanistan, but this time for ill. The world is now in serious tension. The family of man is more deeply at odds with itself and the precipice of nuclear war is visibly nearer to us all. Arnold Toynbee said that history is constantly throwing up challenges to which we respond. A fresh challenge now confronts us. The Afghanistan incident is different from most others. It has made us contemplate man’s destruction. One hundred and four nations of the world have condemned the Soviet action.

The response must not be to take up arms to destroy another nation, for therein lies man’s destruction. The response must be to search again for the path to peace, for only success in this search will save the world. Searching for peace is a challenge in itself. It involves not only the difficult task of assessing what our opponent is doing but also self-analysis to identify where we may have erred in what we have or have not done. One thing is clear in the hard world of international relations- the search for peace is not advanced by weakness or by appeasement and rarely by failure to arm for possible conflict. Protest, the building of defences, the drawing of lines and other actions- non-violent in themselves- have unfortunately perhaps become part of the armoury of peace. Yet that is the reality we face. Nevertheless, they are far less daunting than the prospect of violence itself. The imminent and terrible danger of the present situation is that if the Soviets and the rest of the world are forced to arms, then for the first time since World War II humanity will be standing on the edge of existence facing a nuclear war.

President Carter in his State of the Union message has drawn the line in the Persian Gulf. Similar lines have been drawn for over 30 years in Europe. The United States and we ourselves have announced an intention to improve our defences. We must hope and pray that they will remain only part of the arsenal of peace. In the present world situation these activities are in a sense negative but necessary responses in the search for peace. In determining what positive responses we might take we would be foolish not to bear in mind the whole thrust behind Soviet foreign policy. Kissinger in his recent book described it in this way:

To the industrial democracies peace appears as a naturally attainable condition: It is the composition of differences, the absence of struggle. To the Soviet leaders, by contrast, struggle is ended not by compromise but by the victory of one side. Permanent peace, according to Communist theory, can be achieved only by abolishing the class struggle and the class struggle can be ended only by a Communist victory. Hence, any Soviet move, no matter how belligerent, advances the cause of peace, while any capitalist policy, no matter how conciliatory, serves the ends of war.

The real lesson to learn from this is that we must, by positive action, help to ensure that the forces and the conditions which can be the seedbed for Soviet communism do not exist in other countries, whether we do it by aid, by trade, by better communication or by more friendly diplomatic relations with them. There is no doubt that if the circumstances exist in a country for Soviet communism to spread, the Soviets will spread it.

I mentioned earlier the use of protest and I would like to apply it to the present crisis. In this debate two things are agreed. They are- and I am using the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden)-that the Russian occupation of Afghanistan is outrageous and that an effective boycott of the Moscow Olympics would be a major psychological weapon against the Soviet Union. Yet the debate, instead of proceeding in a rational way, has been used by the Labor Party for political purposes. As I have already said, it is attempting what I believe to be an impossible task, that is, to divide our athletes from the rest of the community. While saying that there should be no trade boycott, honourable members opposite condemn the Government for not invoking one. Through the Australian Council of Trade Unions, as is clear from Question Time this morning, they have been attempting to get a ban placed on the export of Australian wool, notwithstanding that they say that there should be no boycott. For what purpose? There is an ulterior motive, as is apparent from what has been said by Mr Hawke. It is for the purposes of embarrassing the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The motives of the Labor Party and of those who support it are well and truly in doubt in this debate. Their motives are basely political. Their motives are not Australian in the true sense. Their motives are not there to get to the reasons that lie behind this problem that is facing our country and the need for an effective boycott, as I will show, of the Olympic Games.

The Government has expressed the view that it is not in Australia’s national interest for Australians to participate in Games held in Moscow if the Russians do not get out of Afghanistan. It has asked the Australian Olympic Federation that, in those circumstances, no Australian team should be sent to Moscow. I have made the point before and I repeat that it really is a matter for the Government to decide such an issue. Foreign policy is a matter for the Government. The relationship between a particular action overseas and our national interest has to be determined by the relevant authority. In this country it is the Federal Government. I have no doubt that the athletes and the sporting organisations of Australia will bear that in mind well and truly.

At the same time the Government is very sympathetic to our athletes and realises the sacrifices that they would be making if they did not go to the Olympic Games in Moscow. But we are asking them to do this as an act of protest about Soviet action which all the world- including the Opposition, strangely enough, from listening to this debate- regards as horrendous. Peaceful protest can be a very effective weapon. It has been used many times in democratic countries, including, as we might recall, Australia during the Vietnam crisis. An empty seat is a well known form of protest. It is non-violent and absence can speak louder than words. There are some who assert that politics and sport should not be mixed. This would be very good if it were possible, but apparently it is not. It certainly was not when the Soviets, for political reasons, refused to play Chile in Chile in an elimination match for the European Cup; nor was it when the Soviets recently refused to participate in the world shooting championships in South Korea.

The absence of nations from the Moscow Olympics is not a new thought in this place. It is contemplated in the report on human rights in the Soviet Union. No doubt it explains, as I understand it, the attitude of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). The honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), who is the shadow minister for sport, supports an effective boycott- at least he did recently when he returned from his visit to the United States. As I said, the Government is very sympathetic to our athletes. In order to minimise the sacrifice they are being asked to make on behalf of the whole Australian community, including the Labor Party, other international sporting competitions are being organised. These competitions would not be held at the same time as that proposed for the 1980 Olympics so as not to compete with the Olympic movement. The Government fully supports the Olympic ideal but I ask all our athletes to realise that the Olympic charter is currently under grave threat. I refer to the Olympic charter. I have here the edition of 1978. Rule 3 states:

The Olympic Games take place every four years. They unite Olympic competitors of all nations in fair and equal competition.

The International Olympic Committee shall secure the widest possible audience for these Games.

No discrimination in them is allowed against any country or person on grounds of race, religion or politics.

Everybody who has read the report on human rights in the Soviet Union knows that the Soviet team to attend the Olympic Games will be determined with discrimination on the grounds of religion and politics. Certain athletes in the USSR will not be able to get into that team because of religion and politics. I ask those honourable members opposite who have decent, good minds to contemplate that possibility. I wonder how Mr Sakharov is getting on in Gorky. I wonder whether he will be allowed to go to the Olympic Games. Every honourable member opposite knows that he will not be allowed. They know why he is in Gorky. They also know why a lot of other dissidents will be sent to other places like Gorky and that there will be no possibility for some people in the USSR to attend the Olympic Games. Those honourable members opposite who were party to this report on human rights in the Soviet Union ought to stand up now and support it instead of giving the sort of support that they are giving to their leader. I refer also to page 78 of the Olympic charter because it has a very good lesson for us to learn. It is the part that deals with the conditions laid down for candidate cities. I ask honourable members to listen to this carefully. It states:

The candidate city shall officially confirm that it is not its intention to use the Games for any purpose other than the interest of the Olympic movement.

It has to give an undertaking to the International Olympic Committee that it will not use the Games for those purposes. I want to refer honourable members to what the Prime Minister said this morning when he incorporated in Hansard a document that has been given to communist party officials in the USSR in relation to the Olympic Games. I have time to quote only a little of it. It states:

More than ever before in its 80-year history, the Olympic Games have turned into an event of great social and political significance and actively exert an influence on all aspects of the life of society. It is clear that international relations, the disposition of political and class forces in the world arena, and the presence in the world of two opposing systemscapitalism, which has outlived its day and socialism, which is growing and becoming stronger with each day- leave their imprint on the Olympic Games, as a large-scale social phenomenon.

The most critical ideological structure between the two opposing social systems has an effect in the most direct manner on the choice of cities for the Olympics . . .

I invite honourable members to obtain that document and read it and to set aside the article I have just read about the undertakings that have to be given by candidate cities. If it is not clear that the USSR is using the Games for purposes other than the Olympic movement, I would eat my hat if I wore one. Quite clearly, it would be looking in the face of truth to suggest anything else. It is clear that Moscow is in breach of the undertaking it had to give in order to become the host city for the Olympic Games. The International Olympic Committee, if it were doing its job, would, on this ground alone, take the Games away from Moscow.

If the Australian Olympic Federation and its constituent bodies are concerned about the Olympic ideal- from talking to them, I am quite satisfied that they certainly are- they, too, should be concerned about it. This is a blatant breach of the charter and they need to give it the most anxious and urgent thought. Those who are concerned to preserve the Olympic ideal would regard it as enough in itself to refuse to go to the Olympic Games held in Moscow. This is reason enough to an athlete.

It is also vital that we in Australia bring home to the Soviet Government and impress upon the Russian people our revulsion and outrage- the words of the Leader of the Opposition- at the occupation of Afghanistan. We all agree- both sides of this House agree- that a most effective way of doing this is by refusing to go to Moscow. We should all work together towards that common objective. Yet, as honourable members know, the Labor Party is trying to deter our athletic organisations and our athletes from that purpose. The Government, on the information it has, believes that an effective Olympic boycott can and will come about. Over 30 nations support it. I believe that in due course the United States Olympic Committee will fall in behind its Government and that other national committees will follow. I am confident that our own Olympic Federation will give very serious thought to the request we have made to it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

– I am sure that the House is not going to be persuaded by the kind of rhetoric that we have just heard from the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott). The Government, as we are well aware, is guilty of hypocrisy in terms of this issue. It is, under the guise of rhetoric concerning the Olympic Games, in fact bringing about a major change in Australian foreign policy. Rather than debating that change which is being brought about in serious terms, the Government continues to want to debate the Olympic Games. The Olympic Games are not central. Certainly, they are not central to a government which began by talking about major sanctions and which has progressively reduced those sanctions so that now all it has left to talk about is discrimination against the young people of Australia. As the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) said earlier this afternoon, this Government has a great history of discriminating against the youth of Australia, particularly, we remember, in the Vietnam War.

In my view the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has not presented a convincing case to support his assertion that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which every member of this House condemns, represents in any sense the most serious crisis in international relations since the Second World War. After all, his speech contained no serious assessment of the history of international relations in that period. Instead, it contained a rather one-sided assessment of selective Soviet actions. Indeed, it provided no assessment of the past directions of Australian foreign policy. Furthermore, it is quite clear that Afghanistan, while being an important nation within western Asia, is a nation with which Australia has never had anything more than distant relations. In the 30 years to 1979 we contributed by way of foreign aid the great amount of $3m. We have never maintained an embassy in Kabul. By contrast, Afghanistan is a country which has shared a common border with the Soviet Union and with which the Soviet Union has had the closest relations since the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1917. From the point of view of the United States, Afghanistan has not represented a country of major importance. Indeed, there is evidence that the United States for some time has been prepared to accept that it is a country within the area of Soviet influence and that since 1978 it has been very close to being a Soviet satellite. It can then be argued that on the basis of broad strategic considerations, which are, after all, quite central to the Prime Minister’s approach, until the last two weeks Afghanistan has not been a matter of any concern, let alone the gravest concern.

It is for these reasons that this debate has centred on the question of the most appropriate response to events in Afghanistan rather than on the history of that country and/or on the reasons for Soviet intervention late last year. President Carter and Prime Minister Fraser are interested -apart from their interests in re-election- in global political power relations, comparative strategic strengths between the West and the Soviet Union and the question of oil. They are not and cannot be seen to be fighting for the interests of the Afghanistan people. To suggest that anyone on the Government side is really seriously concerned about that is just so much hypocrisy. In my view this perspective, whilst important and arguable, has nevertheless clouded the serious regional and national considerations which are important in western Asia. The Prime Minister, for example, does not take as a matter of prime importance the Islamic movement, whether in terms of the internal crisis which was developing in Afghanistan or in terms of its implications for the western Asian region, including the Soviet Union itself. Nor is he concerned to mention the ethnic and linguistic diversity of the area with its accompanying tendency for loyalties to transcend national boundaries, including the Moslem people in the southern areas of the Soviet Union.

Nor did his speech give serious consideration to the relationships which have existed and which may exist in the future between neighbouring states such as Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and India. I submit that the reason for this is that the Prime Minister is primarily concerned with an outdated balance of power theory which still tends to see the world primarily divided between the Soviet Union and the United States with all other relationships forming a sub-set of those dominant relationships. However, the difficulty of achieving any kind of unified response to the events in Afghanistan flows from the fact that there is greater and greater fragmentation in those great power blocs and more and more willingness on the part of nations to determine their policies in consultation with groupings which have increasingly cut across the simplicities of those great power bloc theories.

Thus in determining a response to an event such as the invasion of Afghanistan one has to consider more and more what those nations think is important to any particular country. I believe that it is then significant in Australia’s case that the Prime Minister went west to the United States and Europe whereas the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) travelled north and east to consult the nations in our region. I believe that that indicates the complexity of Australian foreign policy. It also indicates alternative directions which our policies might take. I would submit that whereas the Prime Minister went the way of Menzies and Holt, the Foreign Minister went the way of Whitlam, who recognised that in the final analysis, the future of this country depends and will depend more and more on our relationships with the countries of South East Asia and the Pacific. The reality is that the Prime Minister went on his tour largely for reasons of selfaggrandisement rather than on the basis of any special obligations we may have had in the western Asian region. We have no treaties in this region and it is quite clear that the ANZUS pact has never been understood to refer to it.

There has been no demand from the countries of our region for a regional response to the events in western Asia and no endorsement was given to Australia to play a leading role on the part of the region. Indeed, as the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) and others have suggested there is clear evidence that the countries in our region are much more concerned about the situation in Kampuchea and its implications for them than they are about the implications of Soviet actions in Afghanistan. This does not mean that they are not prepared to condemn the Soviet invasion. What it means is that their response will be necessarily limited. In this sense Australia has differed from other countries in our region. We have had our Prime Minister and our Foreign Minister dashing around the world, the Prime Minister presumably making commitments for a very substantial response, when if anything the consensus of our neighbours is that the response should be quite limited. It is this which gives rise to charges of hypocrisy, charges which after all are not new when it comes to Australia, when one thinks in terms of actions in our region. For example, while we offered tremendous moral support to the United States in Vietnam- the United States spent billions of dollars and lost tens of thousands of soldiers- we committed a meagre three battalions. It would seem to me, with the greatest of respect, that the Prime Minister of this country knows little or is pursuing a course which is much more appropriate to great powers such as the United States, Britain or France but which is quite inappropriate to a medium and small sized power such as Australia.

Since the beginning of January the Prime Minister has been retreating on bis commitments and in the end this must be recognised overseas. Furthermore, he is allowing Australia to share responsibilities in western Asia which may in the end prove to be disastrous for that region.

I wish to refer particularly to the commitments that have been made by the United States to President Zia’s regime in Pakistan. Perhaps the most serious response from the United States has been its commitment to provide massive military assistance to Pakistan. This, not the Olympic Games, is likely to become the centre of the real foreign affairs debate. The United States initially offered to President Zia $400m to purchase arms which President Zia described as chicken feed. Negotiations are currently continuing about the level and type of aid, which are unlikely to result in less than what was initially offered. Given the sympathetic interest of Saudi Arabia, with whom there are religious links, it may be very much larger.

Massive military aid to Pakistan is inevitably controversial for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the’ nature of the regime which President Carter is- planning to support. As Tariq Ali pointed out in. the Guardian on 20 January 1980, it is not exactly a free world bastion. Indeed, there were world wide protests only last year when General Zia executed the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr Bhutto. Furthermore, the Government led by General Zia, which came to power in a coup in 1977, has operated a military dictatorship since, postponing promised elections on four occasions, the most recent being in October 1979 when they were postponed indefinitely. The regime has no widespread support among the masses, by comparison with the former Government based on the Pakistan People’s Party, which has continued to receive widespread support in each of the four provinces. There is continuing opposition to the government from the Pakistan People’s Party despite the gaoling of its leadership, including the imprisonment of former Prime Minister Bhutto’s family. There is also continuing opposition from the important ethnic groupings; that is, the Pathans, the Baluchis, and the Sindhis, all of whom are extremely critical of the army, which is regarded by the Baluchis in particular as an army of occupation.

It would appear once again, despite the historical lessons that should by now have been learned, that President Carter, with the support of the Australian Prime Minister, is about to provide massive backing for an unpopular military regime which represents the most reactionary forces in his country. We are inevitably reminded of earlier United States support for successive governments of Vietnam. As Renouf has pointed out Eisenhower initially sought to link military aid to South Vietnam to social and economic reforms after the accession to leadership by President Diem in 1954. However, despite Diem’s resistance to the substance, if not the spirit of reforms, the United States in February 1955 committed itself to continued and expanded aid.

It would appear that President Carter, confronted with the need to secure re-election, has similarly decided to jettison his earlier public commitment to human rights for the sake of short term political gains. This problem will not even arise in the case of our own Prime Minister who has never displayed a superficial commitment to such human rights, as is evidenced by bis ignoring of the genocide of the East Timorese people at the hands of the Indonesians and the repressive acts of most of the governments with which he is advocating closer economic and political ties; for example, the Park regime in South Korea and its successor, the Philippines and President Marcos. The prinicipal argument which could be used to question the United States strategic response to events in Pakistan flows not from the internal instability of the Zia regime, but from the heightened instability and potential conflict which might occur in a region where the boundaries of four major powers intersect, the Soviet Union, China, Pakistan and India.

The United States response to events in Afghanistan appears to be devised without effective consideration of these dangers. Indeed she appears to be insensitive to simply what is involved in disturbing the delicate relationships which currently exist between Pakistan and her much larger neighbour, India. The possible consequences of this destabilisation could include the following: We could have the end of the restrictions in terms of non-proliferation policies and the further development of nuclear facilities in both countries, including the development of nuclear weapons; the use of Western supplied arms by President Zia against Baluchi, Pathan and Sindhi minorities as well as their possible deployment in Afghanistan; the indefinite extension of military rule in that country. So much for ‘the free world’. There could be a redirection of resources away from social and economic development programs in both India and Pakistan, despite the incredibly low standard of living of both countries; the further development of antipathy to the West and the United States and her allies as a result of what would be seen to be in the region her continuing support for reactionary forces. This, in my view, is the inevitable result of a policy which focusses on large scale military support for what is little more than a fascist regime which will result in increased tension between the two major countries in middle Asia.

If one looks at the history of the Australian foreign policy it is in the first instance a history of dependence upon other great powers. In particular it has been a history of dependence on the United States. We have been drawn in our great willingness to rush across the world providing support, into supporting those policies, which have been almost invariably insensitive to the domestic, national and regional considerations that are involved in a particular situation. We are being inevitably drawn, at the present time, I would submit, into a situation in western Asia which will make the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan seem like a very minor event indeed. Considerable countries with massive populations with annual per capita incomes of little more than $100 per annum are being drawn into a situation where massive Western armaments and technology can be used to promote war either internally within those countries or between countries.

It is this insensitivity to the social fabric of South East Asia which has been a characteristic of Australian governments and Australian foreign policy for so long. In the brief period of the Whitlam Government there was a shift of direction and the Government did attempt to understand in a different way and come to terms with relationships in the region so that we could begin to understand what is happening in a country like Indonesia and what that meant for us in our long term security. One hoped that that would be continued. The reality is that we are turning away from our region to greater dependence on the United States. We are being drawn into a rearmament program which must mean massive diversion of resources away from the developing countries of the world and which the Third World cannot possibly in the long run support. The Prime Minister who has postured so much about relationships with the Third World in fact is sacrificing those relationships for the sake of a domestic election in Australia and for the protection of the United States.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

-Listening to the speech of the Australian Labor Party representative, the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) who has just resumed his seat, I noticed that he spoke a good deal about the internal policies of India and Pakistan. I do not see that that has much bearing on the issue which faces this country today. He criticised the objective of Australia in looking towards the United States of America for support. Why should not Australia look towards a powerful nation which accepts the same standards of living and the same democratic principles that we in Australia propose and foster? It is reasonble to think that we should be looking, being a small nation of some 14 million people, for the co-operation of other nations which have similar views to our own in the matter of the welfare of our own people and the welfare of people generally throughout the world. I do not want to take too much time on what he said, but at the close of his speech he mentioned Whitlam; he did not tell us of the Whitlam Government’s attitudes to the East Timorese situation. I could quote some of the things that were said by the Whitlam Government and the actions taken by the Whitlam Government in that direction if I cared to do so. However, I do want to turn to the main issue that is involved in this debate.

It is certainly true- it has been reiterated on so many occasions- that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is just another step forward in the Soviet plan of expansion. There can be no doubt about that. It was a cold, calculated and ruthless subjection of a nation powerless to prevent itself from being overrun by a neighbouring super power. There is not a lot of dissent from that viewpoint. I am pleased to see that there is not, but there is a lot of difference of opinion as to how that situation should be faced. Very divided opinion has been expressed in relation to this debate. Opinions have been expressed by the Australian Labor Party- the Opposition in this House- and by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I could quote some instances. I would like to quote a portion of a speech which was made in the Senate. I quote where a Labor speaker said, inter alia:

I agree with that part of the Prime Minister’s statement, however, which says that in all of these dangerous events that have taken place the hand of the Soviet Union can be seen either directly or indirectly. I think that we should be deluding ourselves and being careless of our own future if we did not recognise the fact that the Government of the Soviet Union is bent upon carrying out those policies which it has clearly expressed on so many occasions; that is, that the only future it can see for the world is one in which the world is dominated by the Government of the Soviet Union.

That is an opinion which was accepted not only by this side of the House but at least by one speaker from the Australian Labor Party. Some of the views that have been expressed by other honourable members do come along in some part towards that point of view. Having accepted this fact, what are we going to do about it? That is the important thing. What does the ACTU propose to do about it? The unions had a meeting and a discussion arose prior to this meeting. In the Australian on 20 February 1980 it is quoted that the ACTU says that the move- that is, the wool embargo and a boycott on sales to Russia- would be aimed at scoring a major political blow. That is the point I want to make- a major political blow. It does not matter so much about the principles of the thing as long as the Opposition can score a major political point. Running through speech after speech of Opposition members we see the endeavour not to try to solve the situation, not to try to protect Australia, but to gain some political advantage. The Australian quoted:

To scoring a major political blow to the Federal Government by achieving what it is not prepared to do . . .

I will quote from a report I have of a meeting of the ACTU when it came to deciding on what it was going to do about this situation:

We do not deny the threat facing the world . . .

It does not deny the threat. That is what I have said; people are fairly much in agreement. What is it going to do about it? It says that the Australian Olympic Games team should be allowed to participate in Moscow. Is that not a wonderful attempt to try to avert this great threat that the world faces today? I concede that I am quoting inter alia, only in part. The report goes on to say:

In these circumstances we would support a total national boycott on Soviet Union trade and communications . . .

Just wait for it:

  1. . for the period of the Olympic Games.

Could you imagine anything more futile than that, a boycott for the period of the Olympic Games? Even the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) has to smile at that. This just shows how this aspect of consideration by the ACTU is not directed to trying to solve this problem. Further on the ACTU report states:

We believe that the objective of the labour movement should be directed towards asserting international principles.

That is what it is going to do- assert international principles. What a magnificent attempt to divert the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan! It goes on to say:

Indicate to the USSR Government Representatives in Australia that the view of Australian Trade Union movement is that the Soviet Union should immediately withdraw from Afghanistan.

The effect that would have on the USSR would be staggering! I could go on but that is the ACTU’s opinion. There is no doubt that the ACTU is divided. It was stated in the Australian that opponents of the move had grave doubts about the impact and feared that it could affect job opportunities. The ACTU is totally divided. It has no concerted policy on one of the greatest issues and dangers that have ever faced this country. My friend the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) reminds me that you can take anything out of the Opposition case, any argument at all; just take your pick. It is an absurd position for a national Opposition to take.

Mr Humphreys:

– Do not be too hard.

Mr CORBETT:

– I could not be too hard. The Government in Afghanistan must now be recognised simply as a puppet of the Soviet Union. Soviet domination of Afghanistan challenges the free world to take action which will demonstrate to the Soviet Union that it will meet with opposition of a nature which will be felt by that nation where it hurts, and that is what the Australian Government policy is aiming to do- to do something which will have some effect on the Soviet Union. It will do something that will hurt the Soviet Union. That is not easy to achieve, but we are achieving it. The Opposition does not want to do anything that will hurt the Soviet Union.

Action taken by the United States, supported by other nations including Australia, in relation to stock food supplies will hurt the Soviet Union unless the shortfall is made up by other nations in a position and willing to do so but such aid is unlikely to amount to enough to have much effect. That action is hurting Russia. We in the Australian Government are endeavouring to support that action by not making up the shortfall even though we are continuing to trade with Russia. The Soviet Union’s presence in Afghanistan poses the most serious threat to world peace that has been faced for many years and this aspect must be constantly kept in mind. It is true that there are dangerous situations and potentially dangerous situations in other areas, but I believe that in most instances, but not all, they are brought forward to try to detract from the major issue. Unless the free world takes such action as will demonstrate beyond any doubt that the Soviet will have to pay a price for its intervention in Afghanistan there is little doubt that this move will be followed by further expansionist moves.

I believe that world opinion must be directed to this particular situation so that any action that can be taken will be taken to bring home to the people of the Soviet Union the disgust of the free peoples of the world, including those in nonaligned countries. This is the most effective way to prevent further action of this kind by the Soviet Union and that is what we are looking for.

But one of the problems of the free world is to communicate that view to the Russian people. It is for this reason that the boycott of the Olympic Games by a substantial number of nations will bring home more forcibly than perhaps any other action could to the people of the Soviet Union that their country stands condemned by the great majority of nations. That is what we are working for; that is what the Opposition should be working for, but it is not. The fact that 104 countries voted at the United Nations General Assembly to condemn the Soviet action was a great encouragement to those people who are endeavouring to marshal world opinion against the Soviet Union’s action. Our own Prime Minister deserves full credit for the work he has done in that direction.

The problem, as I mentioned before, is to get this information through to the people of the Soviet Union because of the restriction placed on the dissemination of news to the public of that country. I believe that the Australian Government has shown a creditable and calm determination to support the United States and other countries who are fully convinced that the advance of the Soviet Union must be stopped. The measures to be used should be peaceful measures sufficient to do the job and they will be directed to the people of the Soviet Union as well as to the Government of the USSR. This is the great value of boycotting the Olympic Games.

Anyone who has been to Russia, as I have been, will know that there is no way in which one can get a reasonable viewpoint of the outside world’s opinion on many things. One cannot even take a newspaper into that country. After well over half a century of dictatorial government the Soviet Union is not prepared to have its own way of life compared with that of the free world, with all its faults. It is just not prepared to face up to that. If it cannot do it after well over half a century it is never going to do it. That Government still has to lean on private enterprise or individual enterprise in conjunction with community farms to get the type of production it wants and it is not even getting it now.

I believe that in asking for a boycott of the Olympic Games we recognise the sacrifice that we are asking our Australian athletes to make. Previous speakers have mentioned the great work our athletes have done for Australia and the honour they have brought to themselves and to this country. They have been wonderful ambassadors and it is a tragedy that they should have to be asked to forgo the Moscow Olympics but we ask them to make this sacrifice in the interests of national security, in the interests of the freedom of the free world. As my friend the honourable member for Paterson (Mr 0 ‘Keefe) pointed out an hour or so ago, the decision of the Kenya Government, which has magnificent athletes, to forgo its opportunity to win distinction at the Olympic Games surely should be an inspiration to every other nation. The Kenyans have given us a magnificent example to follow.

There is one other point I want to make and it is this: Despite the fact that Australia is a nation comprising people mainly of European extraction, it is in South East Asia. This is a point that has not been raised in this debate to my knowledge and I want to make it. Because of this I believe Australia has an important role to play in promoting a combined effort by the Asian nations towards the common cause of peaceful resistance to this Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. To this end trade between Australia and these Asian nations should continue to be developed against the background of strengthening the ties of friendship and in the common cause of self-preservation.

I have only recently returned from Japan. Japan is very close to the Soviet Union and has the problem of disputed islands to the north and problems of common fishing grounds. But the Japanese have come out and condemned the Soviet Union for its action. I believe this action could be expanded. I believe that in the interests of national security and the security of the world we should be moving towards a combination of people in the Asian countries who have views similar to our own about the Soviet Union’s expansion policy. Increased defence expenditure by all nations which sense the threat to world security is essential and Australia’s moves in this direction could be an encouragement to others to demonstrate their willingness to oppose oppression in their own countries. The combined efforts of all nations determined to preserve our way of life is essential if the Soviet Union’s plan of expansion is to be prevented. Prevented it must be if we are to preserve the freedom that we enjoy today.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I state at the outset that I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). I would like to state also, as have all members of my party, that of course we support the motion that was passed by the United Nations by that overwhelming majority condemning the Russians for their incursion into Afghanistan. I shall confine my remarks not to the history of the Russian involvement in Afghanistan- because it was traced very adequately by the previous Labor speaker, the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe)but rather to pointing out the cynical hypocrisy of the Government’s reaction -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J. D. M. Dobie)- Order! There is too much audible con,versation from one corner of the House. I ask that the honourable member for Parramatta be heard in silence and with courtesy.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It is the Country Party sheep baaing over there, Mr Deputy Speaker. As we all know, there are many hazards associated with being a member of this House. Now we add another dimension to these hazards, industrial deafness; not only from the baaing from the Country Party members but also from the sabre rattling of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). This practice in which he has engaged is deafening and also dangerous. This man, the war lord from Nareen, is a danger to the community. This Prime Minister has a long record as a war monger. His war mongering permeates his whole public record. His present resort to hysteria and frenzy makes it difficult to debate in a rational and responsible way the complex international crisis which now confronts Australia. The Prime Minister is creating an atmosphere of phoney foreign policy tensions and the most blatant defence jingoism.

It should be remembered that the Prime Minister perfected his immoral and clumsy approach to Cold War politics under the guidance of the arch-priest of national divisiveness, the late former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies. Much has been made of the Prime Minister’s alleged consistency in what is interpreted as an implacable opposition to the Soviet Union. We should look at the record of his public life and not just this one aspect of it. It is plain that the Prime Minister’s long held monolithic view of world communism is shattered completely.

Only a few years ago China was as black a villain in the Prime Minister’s book as Russia is today. He is on record as stating his fears for his children’s lives in the face of China’s aggression. Now he accepts the Chinese interpretation of world communism. He welcomes security alliances with China and has enthusiastically supported Chinese backing of the infamous Pol Pot regime. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out in this House yesterday, this regime is responsible for the death of Vh million people in Kampuchea, but this Government still supports it.

It should also be remembered that the Prime Minister was Australia’s single most enthusiastic hawk on Vietnam in his role as Minister for Defence at that time. Strangely, he was silent over the United States invasion of the Dominican Republic and the Indonesian takeover of Timor. This is the record of a man who has an inflated idea of his world importance and who has propelled himself forward as the saviour of the free world to the bitter embarrassment of the great bulk of Australian people.

It is important to point out at this stage the dichotomy between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Affairs Minister (Mr Peacock) as to the real reason for the Russian incursion into Afghanistan. Whilst the Prime Minister views this invasion of Afghanistan as ‘the greatest international crisis since World War II’, the Foreign Minister, in an interview with Peter Bowers of the Sydney, Morning Herald in January last, stated quite clearly that he did not view the Afghanistan affair as part of a grand plan to conquer the world. How quickly he did a lateral arabesque to get himself behind the Prime Minister to reinforce the views of the Prime Minister. More is the pity.

I firmly believe that the Prime Minister has over-reacted violently to this Soviet aggression for reasons that might or might not be interpreted as honest. When he talks about this as being ‘the greatest international threat since World War II’ he conveniently forgets the Cuban missile crisis, the Berlin blockade, the continuing Middle East tension, the Vietnam War, the incursion of the Soviets in Czechoslovakia and Hungary. To describe this incursion into Afghanistan as ‘the greatest international threat since World War II’ is a vast over-reaction.

The position of the Labor Party is perfectly clear. We abhor the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Personally, I condemn it in the strongest possible terms. My party and I support effective- I emphasise ‘effective’- measures that will curb Russia’s interest in future global aggrandisement. We do not support unilateral action by one nation or a handful of nations because this will not be effective in moral or economic terms. In my view, whilst not diminishing the evils of the Soviet actions, I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister’s reactions should be measured in terms of his recognition that this is an election year.

As I said earlier, the Prime Minister learnt well from his predecessor, Sir Robert Menzies. History records the manipulation of the Petrov affair for electoral purposes by the then Prime Minister about to face a hostile electorate, and the subsequent success of that cynical ploy. At a later date Mr Menzies used the projected purchase of Fill aircraft to quell an alleged threat from Indonesia to win another election. There is no doubt that Harold Holt won an election in 1966 with the help of a visit to Australia by Lyndon Johnson, popularising the Vietnam War. And so the record goes on. It is one of which people on the other side of the House should be ashamed.

The election of 1975 was the pinnacle of success for this policy of divide and scare. History will not treat the Prime Minister kindly for his part in this grubby episode which led to the downfall of a democratically elected government. The Prime Minister is now involved in an exercise of the same nature, giving the ‘commie can’ a hefty kick as did his predecessors in the hope that the electors of Australia will once again succumb to his facile argument and forget the great domestic problems now confronting Australia.

The Prime Minister is doomed to disappointment. In 1980 a kick on the ‘commie can’ does not produce the same resonant reaction as it might have done 10 years ago. The Australian electorate is far too sophisticated to swallow this form of cheap war mongering. As evidence of this belief I invite honourable members to check the latest gall up polls. So it seems that the posturing of the Prime Minister has gone unrewarded. The people of Australia must now foot the bill for the jaunting around the world in Pensioner One. That is what they call his plane because his private plane was bought by refusing indexation to pensioners of their less than adequate pensions. Having jaunted around the world and having spent his time at Claridges with his $50 breakfasts, these costs must be chalked up to the characteristic excesses of this grandstanding Prime Minister seeking to enlarge his image on the world stage.

We see this Prime Minister joining Jimmy Carter, another national leader under seige, in jointly striving to save their political lives. Our Prime Minister became a lackey and a messenger boy for the American President- the peanut farmer and the crazy grazier, riding the world range, attempting to whip up a posse. Now that we have joined ourselves so firmly to an American President we should remember just who the previous but one was. It was Richard Nixon. Would honourable members like to be joined to him? He was the American President. At this stage I might add that Muhammad Ali, a real world celebrity, also became a messenger for Jimmy Carter, but at least he had the good grace to treat it for laughs. To his eternal credit when he was in Africa at least he was honest enough to admit that his trip was not the success that he had hoped it might be, as he discovered when he got to Africa that there was a great reaction against America in Africa. I hope he reported that to the White House.

Mr Graham:

– Have you ever heard about John Curtin? You should find out about John Curtin and his association.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Never mind John Curtin. We are worried about Malcolm Fraser at the moment. Our man stormed into Britain. France and Germany, the super salesman from down under. The most fruitful product of this little foray was the statement from Chancellor Schmidt that Australia is the safest country in the world. Of course it is. This makes a laugh of the statements of the Prime Minister in the House on Tuesday night when he again dug out the White Paper on defence from 1976 and regurgitated the statements about all the money that the Government was going to spend, and did not spend, but will spend now to save us.

What can we do to defend a country with a 12,000 mile coastline? What has been the result of all this sabre rattling around the world? Have we imposed any trade boycotts? No, of course we have not because the Country Party will not let the Government do so. I am reminded of a quote that Arthur Calwell used in this House at the time of the Vietnam War when he was condemning the then Government for its trading with the North Vietnamese, while condemning them as our enemies. He quoted some Tennyson: ‘How the jingle of the guinea helps the hurt that honour feels.’ I guess that that could be bastardised in this form to suit the present circumstances: ‘How the rumble of the rouble helps the hurt that honour feels.’ Of course the National Country Party will not let the Government have a trade boycott. We heard only today of the wool from the Prime Minister’s property sitting on a wharf in Melbourne waiting delivery to Russia.

What did the Government do? It cut out the cruises by the Soviet ships, at the end of the season when it is not going to affect anybody. It has performed some other little tasks. It has stopped a trade exposition at the Sydney Royal Easter Show, and a few other little things. Basically, it has done nothing except to decide that our athletes should not go to the Olympic Games. It is a strange thing. Historically, the Greeks used to stop the wars to have the Games. Our Prime Minister seems intent on stopping the

Games to have a war. Last week a rather poignant plea was made on television by a young Olympian. He informed us all that the farmers have a crop every year but the young Olympic athletes have only one. I think we should let them reap it.

It has been said often recently that the 1936 Olympic Games should be recognised as a good reason for boycotting the Russian Games because of the publicity the German race gained from the 1936 Games. To my mind, the greatest thing that happened in 1936 was the conquest by Jesse Owens of the alleged supremacy of the Aryan race and the great denigration that occurred because of that. A single black man from America was able to put down the might of the German race, and the world recognised it. If the Government thinks that a boycott is going to affect the Russian people’s opinion of their Government, it should think again. The honourable member for Maranoa has just been telling us how the Russian people are told only what the Russian leaders want them to know. How are they going to interpret an American boycott of the Games? The Russian newspapers are going to say: ‘Of course the American athletes are not here. They will not come here and race us because they know they cannot beat us.’ The thing will backfire. The whole thing is a joke.

We in Australia can feel nothing but desperation and embarrassment at the political posturing of the Prime Minister as he tours the world in his private plane, dispensing rusty old sabres en route. It is tragic that a nation with such potential for positive peaceable action within its own region should align itself in such a sycophantic and disastrous fashion. Could we as Australians be proud of this sick display of tired worn diplomacy, revealing to the world this imitative uninspired image of a lapdog follower of the United States? Australia is uniquely positioned, geographically and philosophically, to be a balanced rational arbiter in a crisis between the great powers. We are one of the last outposts in the world where there is a tangible thread of freedom inherent in our ethos, and potentially in our thinking, philosophy and actions. What a pity that we have a leader with a facility, or rather an obsession, for dividing this nation. He did it by his actions in 1975, and now he is at it again. Our bold Prime Minister has threatened the Russian bear with a slap on the wrist and has acted out the role of the classical tough leader. All he has left to do is to ban caviare from the pantries in The Lodge, outlaw Russian roulette, and place all Russian bears in Australian zoos on starvation rations.

No doubt our Prime Minister has ingratiated himself with President Carter. No doubt he is hoping that the issue of Afghanistan can be kept on the boil until he gets his act together and takes us to the polls. Strange things happen in an election year. Carter and our Prime Minister have two things in common. They are both beleaguered leaders whose economic promises have demonstrably failed, and they both need an issue to divert electors’ minds from domestic problems. But the Prime Minister has been hoist on his own petard. As the polls show, the people are more perceptive than he gives them credit for. They can spot a belligerent poseur, and they will condemn such a fraud. We condemn the Russians for their invasion of a small and defenceless country, but sabre rattling will not solve the problem. Sober judgment a la Chancellor Schmidt and an attempt to salvage what is left of detente is the only cure.

Debate (on motion by Mr McLean) adjourned.

page 259

OLYMPIC GAMES: HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, in the interests of complete accuracy I need to add to an answer I gave this morning.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-This morning I said that information came in late last night in relation to a resolution df the European Parliament. The resolution I read out was one that had been passed by the European Parliament in about the middle of January in relation to Afghanistan. So that the House may be informed of the substance of the additional resolution passed by the European Parliament on 15 February, I should like to read it. On the Olympic Games the resolution states: (The European Parliament)

  1. Calls upon the governments of the nine to express abhorrence of Soviet oppression and aggression by advising their National Olympic Committees to ask their teams and individual athletes not to take part in the Olympic Games in Moscow;
  2. Invites the governments of the member states to take measures for the Olympic Games to take place on agreed international territory as soon as possible;
  3. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, the Presidents of the National Olympic Committees of all member states and the national parliaments of the nine.

That obviously is a much firmer and harder resolution than the one passed on the earlier date in January, which is the one I read out this morning.

A resolution was also passed dealing with the arrest of Dr Sakharov, and I think honourable gentlemen might be interested in it. It is a resolution of some note, and it states: (The European Parliament)

  1. Protests in the strongest possible terms at the decision of the leaders of the Soviet Union to step up their harsh treatment of dissidents;
  2. Strongly condemns the action taken by the Soviet authorities against the scientist Andrei Sakharov;
  3. Expresses its entire solidarity with Andrei Sakharov and calls for an immediate end to his enforced exile;
  4. Requests all the community institutions to make active representations to the Government of the Soviet Union with a view to securing the release of Soviet citizens prosecuted for their campaign to defend the civil rights of the peoples of the Soviet Union and to implement the Helsinki Final Act which both the European Community and the USSR formally signed in 1975;
  5. Instructs its president to forward this resolution to the Council, the Foreign Ministers meeting in political cooperation, the Commission and the parliaments of the member states.

page 260

REPORTS TO PARLIAMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

-On Tuesday 19 February the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) raised the matter of the Parliament’s difficulties in ensuring that statutory obligations of various bodies to report either regularly or annually to the Parliament were met. Specifically he asked whether there was any means by which the Parliament could ensure that these statutory provisions are complied with. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that a mechanism designed to achieve this end has been developed. Officers of the Parliament have compiled a register which indicates those Acts which impose a requirement on various bodies to report to the Parliament. This has involved a considerable amount of research from various sources, and the basic list of Acts has now been established.

Details of those bodies not meeting their requirements in relation to the financial year 1978-79 have been listed, and the Clerks will be forwarding this information to the Joint Committee on Publications in the near future. This reference to the Joint Committee is in Une with a recommendation of that Committee in its report on the purpose, scope and distribution of the parliamentary papers series, which recommended:

That the Clerks of the Parliament advise the Chairman on any occasion where an author body has failed to meet a statutory requirement to table its annual report, return or other document within the stated statutory period, or within a reasonable period of time following the completion of the period to which the report refers, and

That at the conclusion of each year’s sitting, or as often as may be deemed necessary, the Committee table a return in Parliament recording the titles of those reports of author bodies which have not been tabled during the stated statutory period or within a reasonable period of time following the completion of the period to which the report refers.

I am confident that the arrangements which have been made will prove effective in drawing parliamentary and public attention to those authorities and bodies who fail to meet their statutory reporting requirements.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Speaker, will a copy of the list of bodies not meeting their obligations relating to annual reports be made available to honourable members if they request it or will we have to wait until the report of the Publications Committee?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will consider that matter. I would not like to interdict the passage between the Clerks and the Publications Committee. I will consult with both the Clerks and the Chairman of that Committee to see whether the information going to the Committee might be made available to honourable members at the same time.

page 260

LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise borrowings of $3m by the Commonwealth to fund credit facilities for soldier settlers under the War Service Land Settlement Scheme. The States Grants (War Service Land Settlement) Act 1952 provides for financial assistance to the States in connection with the settlement of ex-servicemen on the land. Under terms determined by our colleague the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon), the Commonwealth has provided in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania capital moneys for the acquisition and development of properties and for the making of advances to settlers for working capital and the acquisition of stock, plant and equipment. In New South Wales and Victoria such moneys have been provided by the State governments and Commonwealth involvement has been limited to sharing losses on a 50:50 basis. Queensland withdrew from the scheme in 1954.

War service credit facilities in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania have been provided by the Commonwealth through borrowings authorised by Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Acts brought down from time to time. The most recent loan Act was in 1 977 when $3m was authorised for this purpose. Tasmania no longer has any settlers in receipt of credit facilities and requirements in South Australia and Western Australia are declining and are expected to phase out over four or five years. Outstanding authority under the 1 977 Act will be insufficient to meet settlers’ credit needs in 1980-81. The proposed amount of $3m is estimated as sufficient to cover the remainder of the program. Estimated expenditure in the year ahead and the level of actual expenditure in the previous year will be provided in the annual Budget in the ordinary way. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 261

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the annual percentage of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government authorities in the States under the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 from 1.75 per cent of collections in the preceding year to 2 per cent. Last year the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 was amended to increase the share of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government in 1 979-80 from 1.52 per cent to 1.75 per cent. The increase proposed in the Bill will apply as from 1980-81 and fulfils the undertaking given by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his election policy speech in November 1977 that the share would be increased to 2 per cent in the lifetime of this Parliament.

Since this Government took office at the end of 1975, the total level of all Commonwealth funds flowing to local government in the States has increased considerably- from $235m in 1975-76 to $333m in 1978-79, the last year for which comprehensive figures are available. This represents an annual average increase of over 12 per cent. I might add, for the information of honourable members, that the figures I have quoted exclude funds provided under the Regional Employment Development Scheme and employment grants passed on to local authorities by the

States. Under those schemes which were terminated by the previous Government in 1975- 76, local authorities were merely used as a channel for the disbursement of funds to assist employment.

The Government has not only increased the level of total Commonwealth assistance to local government, but also it has, under the federalism policy, increased the flexibility available to that sphere of government to determine its own expenditure priorities. This has been done by changing the structure of the assistance by giving local government a share of net personal income tax collections, and by making the funds available as general purpose or untied assistance. Untied funds represented about one-third of total Commonwealth assistance to local authorities in 1975-76 compared with about one-half now.

This remarkable growth in untied funds provided to local government has occurred since the introduction of the tax sharing arrangements in 1976- 77. Untied funds for local authorities in 1975-76 amounted to $79.9 lm; in 1979-80, they amounted to $22 1.74m. On the basis of the Budget estimate of personal income tax collections in 1979-80, a 2 per cent share would provide local government with almost $303m in 1980-81. This represents an average increase of no less than 30 per cent per year since 1975-76 The $22 1.74m provided in 1979-80 represented a substantial increase- 23.6 per cent- over the amount allocated in 1978-79. An allocation of $303m for 1980-81 would imply a further, and even more substantial, increase of about 36 per cent in 1980-81.

In considering the Commonwealth Government’s assistance to local government, two particular aspects need to be borne in mind: Firstly, since the Government took office in December 1975, it has continued a fight against inflation. Because of its efforts inflation is lower than it would otherwise have been and this has benefitted all sectors of the economy including local government. Secondly, the tax sharing arrangements have been designed so as to provide each and every local authority in the country with some assistance. Under previous arrangements, some local authorities did not receive any united assistance from the Commonwealth. All in all, local authorities are far better off since the introduction of the tax sharing arrangements than before. Enactment of the Bill in this session of the Parliament will ensure that there is no delay in making payments based on the increased percentage allocation to the States for on-passing to local government.

The Commissioner of Taxation is required to make his determination of personal income tax collections in 1 979-80 by 3 1 July this year; and in early August it is expected that the Commonwealth will be in a position to make the payments. Actual payment of the funds will await completion by the States grants commissions of their’ assessments, and the Prime Minister being informed of the allocation of the assistance among local authorities. I commend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1 980 to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 262

PAY-ROLL TAX (TERRITORIES) ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · Bennelong · LP

– I move:

This Bill will raise the level of the general exemption from pay-roll tax applicable to the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) and I announced the proposed increase on 27 November 1979. The exemption is to be raised from $66,000 to $72,000 per annum. The higher level will apply from 1 January 1980, thus providing an exemption for 1979-80 of $69,000 on a full-year basis. The last increase applied from 1 January 1979 when the exemption was brought up to $66,000 in line with that allowed in New South Wales. New South Wales has since increased its exemption level to $72,000 per annum with effect from 1 January 1980.

The maximum exemption allowable in monthly returns will increase from $5,500 to $6,000 and, in conformity with the existing rules for the phasing out of the maximum annual exemption, will be reduced at the rate of $2 for every $3 by which the wages for the month exceed $6,000. There will be no exemption once the monthly payroll reaches $ 1 5,000.

As a general rule, the new exemption will first apply to returns for the month in which this Bill receives the Royal Assent. End-of-year adjustments will ensure that the benefits are in all cases back-dated to 1 January 1980. For returns lodged on an annual basis the new exemption will apply from 1 January 1980.

From the day on which the provisions of the Bill come into operation an employer paying wages of $1,350 or less a week will not be required to register for Australian Capital Territory payroll tax purposes. Explanations of technical aspects of the Bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Scholes) adjourned.

page 262

TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I move:

The Customs Tariff Proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The Proposals formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff changes introduced by Gazette notices during the last recess.

Proposals No. 1 contains tariff changes resulting from the Government’s decision on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its reports on:

Coated Copying Film; and

Ships, Boats and Other Vessels Not Exceeding 6,000 Tons Gross Register

The Government has accepted the Commission ‘s recommendation that a duty rate of 25 per cent apply to coated copying film. The 25 per cent rate, which is equivalent to previous substantive and additional temporary duties, is the same as that applying to carbon paper and the Government agrees with the Commission’s assessment that the rates should be the same because of the high degree of substitutability in the use of these products. No significant effects are expected on total activity and employment within the local industry.

Changes arising from the Commission’s report on ships, boats, et cetera, follow the Government’s general acceptance of the Commission’s recommendations that vessels not exceeding 150 gross tons and fishing vessels not exceeding 2 1 metres in length be dutiable at 25 per cent. Previous duties were generally 26 per cent General and 19 per cent Preferential.

Larger vessels are dutiable at minimum rates and subject to bounty assistance. The Commission reported that the new rates of duty are not expected to have significant economic, social or employment consequences.

Proposals No. 2 contain tariff changes resulting from: Firstly, the Government’s decision, as advised to the House by my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) on 26 September last year, to remove the margin of preference for certain goods of United Kingdom or Ireland origin. The effect of this decision is that the rates of duty applying to some 500 items have been increased to the General Tariff level; secondly, the removal of the commitment to maintain a margin of preference for certain New Zealand goods following consultations with New Zealand. Removal of the margin of preference has no effect on the actual duty payable on these goods as provision existed for their admission under by-law pending resolution of the consultations with New Zealand; thirdly, the Government’s decision on the recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission that import quotas continue to apply to passenger motor vehicles and that a proportion of the quota be allocated by tender. The rate of duty applying to imports against tender as a result of the first tender quota allocation is 95.5 per cent.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr GARLAND:
LP

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was introducing the Customs Tariffproposals Nos. 1 to 3 and I was enumerating the Proposals contained in No. 2. The fourth point is the decision of the Government to exempt certain specialised footwear, subject to import licensing, from the 12.5 per cent special additional Customs duty; and the fifth point is Australia’s bilateral settlements with the European Community, Japan and the United States of America in the context of multilateral trade negotiations. Honourable members will recall the statement by my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources on this matter in the House on 21 November last year. As a result of these arrangements rates of duty on a number of items have been reduced. Tariff changes contained in Proposals No. 3 implement the Government’s decisions on recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its reports on certain engines not exceeding 7.46 kW; rotary cultivators; and tractors having a power less than 15 kW; and baby carriages and parts therefor.

The Commission’s recommendations on the long-term levels of assistance for certain small industrial engines, rotary cultivators and small tractors have been accepted by the Government. As a result, duty rates on pedestrian operated rotary cultivators and small tractors have been increased from 22.5 per cent to 25 per cent. Tractor drawn cultivators attract a duty rate of 1 5 per cent. The current duty arrangements for small industrial engines, 40 per cent phasing to 35 per cent in November 1980, remain unchanged.

The increased duties on cultivators, and the reduced duties on engines will improve the competitive position of the local cultivator manufacturers. The Government therefore also accepted the IAC’s assessment that a lower rate of bounty would still provide local manufacturers with the opportunity to make any adjustments to production considered necessary in the light of changing market patterns. Consequently I will be introducing a Bill at a later date to reduce the bounty payable on cultivators. The Government has also accepted the long-term duty rate of 20 per cent recommended by the Commission in respect of baby carriages and parts.

Previously the general tariff rate was 35 per cent but the removal of the United Kingdom preferential rate of 12 per cent means that the industry has in effect gained an increase in assistance. The Commission’s inquiry had its origin in competition from the United Kingdom in the higher quality and prices lines. There is also competition in the lower priced market segment from Taiwan. While the 20 per cent long term rate represents a small reduction in assistance against Taiwan- formerly attracting a developing country rate of 22 per cent- this import source does not appear to have caused difficulties for the Australian industry.

However, to assist local manufacturers to consolidate their market position the Government has decided to defer for two years introduction of the long term rate. In the interim a rate of 25 per cent will apply. This rate has been determined after consideration of market changes and the Commission’s comments on the local industry’s price disadvantage. A comprehensive summary setting out the nature of the duty changes has been prepared and is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House.

Excise Tariffproposals No. 1 (1980) which I have just tabled formally place before Parliament alteration to the excise tariff introduced during the summer recess by authority of Gazette Notice No. 2 (1979) under section 160B of the Excise Act. Proposals No. 1 (1980) increase the excise duty on stabilised crude petroleum oil from $102.27 to $140.1 1 per kilolitre operating on and from 1 January 1980. This alteration followed determination, by the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick), of new import parity prices from 1 January 1980 in accordance with the

Government’s decision that all Australianproduced crude oil should be priced to refineries at import parity levels. I commend these Proposals to the House.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-First of all, the good news, which is that I am grateful to the new Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) for responding positively to requests I made on similar occasions last year for more information to be given when these Proposals come to this Parliament. As the former Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, now the Minister for Education (Mr Fife), is in the House, I would like to thank him for the obviously thorough briefing he has given his successor and for the excellent way he has educated him in that respect. That is the good news.

There is some indifferent news, which is that as yet there has been no announcement that the forms of the Parliament will be improved by the establishment of a parliamentary committee which will examine Proposals such as this in the tariff and excise field so that on behalf of the people of this country these Proposals may be properly debated. Of course, I had no advance notice of this debate and I am speaking at very short notice. Later in the year a customs validation Bill will be introduced when we will have an opportunity to debate a whole list of these Proposals that have been introduced in the meantime. The horse will have bolted. There will be no point in debating them at that stage. The poor unsuspecting members of the public will have had their pockets fleeced by the Proposals in the meantime. Whether or not the Proposals are good or are in the interests of the Australian people will be immaterial because the Australian people will have been paying the piper up till then.

Now the bad news. This excise Proposal, the last of the Proposals which the Minister has brought before us, is enormously significant in this country inasmuch as it is the latest example of the imposition of a petrol tax on the Australian people. I want to say a few things about that petrol tax and about this latest imposition in the short time available to me now. These Proposals in the excise area implement the latest increases in the price of Australian oil which the Government has set as part of its import parity pricing policy. In the 1979 Budget the Treasurer (Mr Howard) estimated that the revenue from the crude oil levy in 1979-80 would be $2,023m. As a result of slightly higher production than was anticipated at that time and, more particularly and importantly, as a result of these 1 January 1980 price increases, the revenue from the crude oil levy now will be about $2,500m. The $2,023m was going to be bad enough, but we have here introduced to the House, almost furtively and with no advance warning whatsoever, an imposition whereby that amount goes up by $400m.

Normally there would be no debate on this Proposal that has just been tabled. I do not mind the Government Whip looking crossly at me because I know he wants to get on to another debate, but when the Australian people are being imposed upon to the extent of $400m by the two paragraphs that the Minister has just read to the Parliament, then I think it is right and proper that a representative of that community should have something to say about it. The Opposition has repeatedly pointed out that the Government’s crude oil pricing policy is entirely unsatisfactory. It is inflationary. Indeed, the increase in inflation in the December quarter was 3 per cent- the worst since 1976. A quarter of that increase was due to this oil pricing policy. It is inflationary; it is an inefficient way of increasing Australia’s oil reserves and of extracting the maximum amount possible from Australia’s oil fields. Most importantly, the levy acts as a tax on consumers of oil products. It is an unfair tax because it affects in particular those who have no choice but to drive their cars to work, to their shopping centres and so on.

Furthermore, it is a regressive tax. It is particularly burdensome for those on middle and lower incomes. It is so burdensome that, due to this tax and other impositions of the Fraser Government, the standard of living of the average person in this community has declined over the last three years by about $17 per week. It is not surprising that the Government back bench members who are interjecting at the moment are finding that the public is becoming very restless, to use the words of the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron). I wonder when he is going to bring up this matter in the party room. Nobody should allow himself to be hoodwinked by what happens if this Government puts aside its import parity pricing policy before the next election as it will be only a temporary move. But what damage has it done to the Australian residents in the meantime? How can we be sure that the Government will not reimpose it after an election if, by a long chance, it gets re-elected, which I trust it will not.

As the honourable member for Fadden pointed out, the Fraser Government’s import parity pricing policy for crude oil has increased the cost of travel for country people and city people. It has also increased the costs to business- costs which are ultimately passed on to consumers. Worse than that, these increases in costs are making us less competitive and thus are ruining our chances to go out into the export markets of this world and are ruining our chances to compete against imports. The Government’s pricing policy is causing an enormous amount of inflation. The last inflation result of 3 per cent for the December quarter was, I repeat, the worst since 1976. These Proposals increase the price of Australian crude oil by $6 a barrel. The effect has been to increase the price of petrol by around 5c a litre. This is what the users of petrol in Australia, who are of course the vast majority of Australians, are having imposed on them by the Fraser Government.

This tax on Australian petrol consumers has increased dramatically over the last five years. In 1975-76 the Commonwealth received $280m from the crude oil levy. That is absolute peanuts compared with what is happening now. In the current financial year it will receive over 10 times that amount of $280m. Over $2,800m is being taken out of the pockets of the public of this nation by this Government under the iniquitous levy which is furtively being increased as a result of the piece of paper which has just been read by the Minister.

Since the Fraser Government came to office its oil policy has more than doubled the price of petrol, at the same time giving substantial unearned windfall gains to the oil companies. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that privately you will be disgusted with this, as I am, even though you probably find it hard to speak up in the party room. I believe that these policies of the Fraser Government have meant an extra $3 billion to the oil companies of this nation. If ever a group does not require that $3 billion it is the oil companies that are fleecing the Australian public. Government spokesmen have repeatedly said that this policy will be maintained despite its effects. For example, just last December, Senator Carrick said:

The Government has made it clear that it will stick to world import parity.

However, the unsatisfactory and ad hoc nature of this policy is becoming increasingly apparent. Since the 1 January price increase for Australian oil, Saudi Arabia has put its price up by a further $2 a barrel. This price has not yet been passed on, but I suppose we will have another piece of paper being read at some time by this Minister- in April- passing on the $2 a barrel increase. It has not yet been passed on to the Australian oil companies, presumably because the

Government is scared of the impact in an election year, but it eventually will be. If the Government is consistent about its policy, if it continues with this iniquitous policy, the Australian oil users must expect this further $2 increase to be passed on to consumers on 1 July. If it is passed on it will mean that in the calendar year 1980 there will be an increase of $6 70m in oil tax revenue which the Government would not otherwise have expected.

The Labor Party would abandon this unnecessary, absurd and chaotic pricing policy. It would implement pricing policies which kept the price of Australian oil down. Oil and petrol would be cheaper under Labor than it will be under the Liberals: Let that be quite clear. There is no need for oil produced in Australia to be priced unthinkingly in line with prices set by governments in other countries. A Labor government would also replace the system of levies which now operates for Australian oil with a resource tax which takes into account, as the levies do not, the cost of producing oil from Australian oil fields and which returns to the public a fairer share of the money to be made from Australian oil production. We are quite satisfied that the community is becoming dissatisfied -

Mr Bourchier:

– Who will pay?

Mr Wallis:

– I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, is the Government Whip al: lowed to interject continually in the way in which he has being doing for the last 10 minutes?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member for Bendigo is reminded that if he persists with his interjections the Chair will have no option but to deal with him.

Mr HURFORD:

-The interruption has given me time to collect my thoughts. I point out to the Government whip and to other honourable members- indeed to anybody who is listening to this debate- that a fellow who drives 10 miles to work is today paying an extra $1 for his petrol, thanks to this Government. We of the Labor Party and the Australian public generally have a right to know how the Fraser Government plans to use the windfall revenue which these excise proposals for a $6 a barrel or 5c a litre increase in the prices imposed on us will give it. We want to know whether the Treasurer will honour his promise of 8 January this year to use this oil tax revenue to provide tax relief in other areas. We wanted to raise this subject in the Parliament yesterday as a matter of public importance but, of course, we were gagged because it was such an embarrassing issue. It was decided by the

Government, using its numbers to steamroll us, that it should not be brought before this Parliament. It is an issue which we will bring to the Parliament’s attention and the attention of the people on every possible occasion. There is a tax office at every petrol bowser in this country, to quote my colleague the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). The Treasurer said on a Willesee at Seven program of a little while ago:

We have made a conscious decision that because the extra $450m represents a tax increase . . . that we believe it ought to go back by way of taxation relief in other areas.

We are going to keep the Treasurer to that promise. We of the Australian Labor Party believe that tax relief ought to be given to the Australian people and that they ought not to have to wait until just before an election for tax relief to be given. The Australian people deserve tax relief now because these millions of dollars are being taken out of their pockets. We have a right to know in which areas the tax will be reduced, when those reductions will take effect and how much of the oil tax will be returned to the public.

The Government should be warned by the observations of the odd back bench member who has the courage to bring it up. But if indeed this tax relief does not come about and, if indeed there is a change in the iniquitous oil parity pricing policy, let the people of this country not be duped into thinking that it is a member of the Liberal Party or a member of the National Country Party who has brought it about. It will be because of the persistence of the Labor Party in this Parliament and in the country generally. To summarise, the proposals that the Government is now bringing before this Parliament are iniquitous. I am glad to have had the opportunity to say what we in the Labor Party believe about them. They are regressive. They will hit people in the lower and middle income groups in particular This year they will raise $2,800 billion for the Treasury. Part of that money ought to go back to the Australian people. Under Labor petrol will be cheaper.

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

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 25

Majority……. 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question now is that the adjourned debate be made an orderof the day for the next day of sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 266

QUESTION

DISCHARGE OF TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Curtin · LP

– I ask leave of the House to move a motion to discharge certain tariff proposals which were moved last year and which constitute part of the Order of the Day No. 62. These proposals were incorporated in the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979 and the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1979 which have now been assented to.

Leave granted.

Mr GARLAND:

– I move:

That the following tariff proposals constituting part of Order of the Day No. 62, Government Business be dischargedCustoms Tariff Proposals Nos. 16 to 30 ( 1979) and Customs Tariff(Coal Export Duty) Proposals ( 1 979 ).

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– It is time that the House had a good look at the procedures that are adopted in these matters. As one of the unfortunate products of the history -

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 63

NOES: 27

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

In Division:

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will resume his seat.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 267

QUESTION

AFGHANISTANINVASION BY SOVIET UNION

Debate resumed.

Mr McLEAN:
Perth

-I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) relating to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. As a Western Australian member of the Government parties I want to say that we in Western Australia, because of our location, are very sensitive about Australia’s defence needs, particularly in the Indian Ocean. We welcome the increased defence efforts being centered on our State. In my view the Prime Minister’s statement was realistic, carefully considered, analytical and certainly very sombre. But unfortunately, at a time of grave international crisis, when one would hope for a bipartisan approach from the body of Australian politics, Opposition members, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in his response to the Prime Minister, treated the issue as a normal day to day political jousting match and tried to score political points at all costs, ignoring the gravity of this issue.

The Leader of the Opposition says that the Government is overreacting and misunderstanding the motives of the Soviet Union. In his speech the Leader of the Opposition continually sought to apologise for the Soviet Union and he said that, in effect, it is not interested in expansion but is very nervous about the security of its borders. He explains the Soviet invasion as representing ‘a dangerous manifestation of the characteristic exaggerated Soviet sense of insecurity’, or ‘as a result of a perceived weakness to the south’. The Leader of the Opposition cannot, for some reason, see the Soviet invasion as being part of an expansionist policy. Either he has not studied modern history or he has not looked at a political atlas. He constantly seeks to make excuses for the behaviour of the Soviet Union by referring to its border security needs. How does he equate this with its action in Vietnam, Angola, Ethiopia or many of those other places in which it has intervened or which it has invaded? Why cannot he not come out and say that the Soviet Union has shown itself to be the world’s leading imperialist and colonialist nation, the words the Soviets themselves use to condemn the United States and other Western nations in international forums? Has he forgotten the Baltic States, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and all the other nations the Soviet Union has invaded, plundered and decimated during the course of this century and the last century? Why can he not accept that the Soviet Union has consistently violated the principles of international law and threatened international peace, all in the course of Soviet global domination?

The Prime Minister is criticised for regarding the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as the most serious crisis confronting the world since World War II. If it is not the most serious crisis we could look at the other crises- the invasion of Hungary, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Cuban missile crisis, the Berlin blockade, the Cold War, Vietnam, the Middle East. The Soviet Union was directly involved in all of them and still the Opposition accuses us of kicking the communist can and still it cannot criticise the Soviet Union without some kind of qualification. To me the attitude of the members of the Australian Labor Party in this whole episode, with very few exceptions, is symptomatic of the weak and spineless attitude of the Western world to the spread of Soviet power over recent decades. As Dr Kissinger said:

The aspect of contemporary life that worries me most is the lack of purpose and direction in so much of the Western world.

Patrick Moynihan, the former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, has talked of a failure of nerve on the part of the West, but in my view- (Quorum formed.) Mr Deputy Speaker, as I was saying, Solzhenitsyn best summed up the weakness of the Western world when talking about life in the West in his Harvard address of July 1978. He said this:

The individual ‘s independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals . . .

He went on to say:

So who should now renounce all this, why and for what should one risk one’s precious life in defence of common values, and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one ‘s nation must be defended in a distant country?

He also said:

Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask.

That was said by someone who knows and who has suffered the trials of living in the Soviet Union. I for one am glad that in Australia we have a Prime Minister who will stand up and proclaim this country solidly against communist expansionism. The Prime Minister of this country has had the fortitude to proclaim his faith in Western ideals of freedom and liberty and condemn the Soviet Union for the way in which it has violated all the principles of international behaviour. The Leader of the Opposition refuses to give his support to this firm leadership and, in the cause of political partisianship says the Prime Minister is only taking this stand for political reasons because this is an election year. It seems that the leader of this nation should sit back and do nothing every time there is an election year. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the Prime Minister of Australia should not respond at all under any circumstances to any international crisis for one year in every three years of government? I think that that is a ludicrous proposition. The Leader of the Opposition is a shining example of the kind of Western weakness Solzhenitsyn referred to.

The strategic implications for the West of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan have been well documented by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) and by eminent strategists throughout the world. Suffice it to say at this stage that the Soviet Union has moved to a position where it has the potential to threaten the world ‘s oil supply, the life blood of the West, and at a time when it has surpassed the West, or soon will, in all types of conventional and nuclear weapons. Only today it was reported that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s Commander, General Bernard Rogers, had commented, in evidence to the Senate Armed Services Committee, on the Soviet Union’s air lifting of troops and material to Angola, South Yemen, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. He said:

The overall effect had been the transformation of the Soviet threat from one directed primarily towards Western Europe to one which was truly global in scope.

Given this kind of assessment one can only ask why the Opposition has failed to announce a clearly articulated specific policy regarding what it would do as a response to the Soviet invasion. In my view its policy of doing nothing is a disgrace and a threat to the best interests of this country and the Western world. I support the call to boycott the Olympic Games. I do stay mindful of the disappointment that it could cause to so many athletes who have trained so hard for these Games. This is a difficult decision for the

Government. Regrettably, there are broader issues and we must think not only of those who are now affected but also of future generations of Australians who one day may be very grateful that this Government took a stand against the Soviet Union. The Opposition has sought to distort the issue of the Olympic boycott. I shall give some figures in this regard. During the two world wars over 93,000 young Australians were killed and 436,000 were wounded. Given those facts, and remembering that only 155 Australians competed at the 1976 Games, is it wrong to try to take a diplomatic offensive against the Soviet Union via the Games in order to let it know that the Western world has limits to its tolerance of Soviet foreign policy?

I support the proposed boycott for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is one of the very few peaceful initiatives that the West can take. Secondlythis is acknowledged even by the Opposition- an effective boycott would be highly visible to the Soviet people and embarrassing to the Soviet Government. There is no dispute on that issue. Trade boycotts would not have that effect. Thirdly- I would like the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) to listen to this in view of his comments in his recent contribution- the parallel to the 1936 Berlin Games, as far as I am concerned, is too close for comfort. The Leader of the Opposition and others, including the honourable member for Parramatta, say that the 1936 Olympics are remembered for the performances of Jesse Owens. That is not how it is remembered by those few Jewish people in my electorate who were in Berlin at the time and who survived to tell the story. They say that when the world leaders came to Berlin to celebrate the Games with Hitler it gave to him and his policies an endorsement, an authority and respectability which they otherwise would not have had, and it brought forward in time the dreaded holocaust.

Is there not a parallel between Nazi Germany and the present Soviet regime, both in their treatment of Jewish people and in the expansionist nature of their foreign policies? I assert that it is the Soviet Union which says that politically the Olympic Games are so important to it. It has made these Games political. An official party document, widely circulated in the Soviet Union, states:

The decision to offer the honoured right to hold the Olympic Games in the capital of the first socialist state was convincing proof of the universal recognition of the historical importance and correctness of the course of our country’s foreign policy.

How can we attend these Games given that we object to Soviet foreign policy and the interpretation of the political significance that the Russians attach to the Olympics? On the question of trade I can see no value in boycotting those goods which Russia can get elsewhere. A trade boycott of that nature would mean that only Australia would suffer and not the Soviet Union. The cynicism of the Opposition on this matter is deplorable. Is it suggesting that we create unemployment or weaken our economy in Australia in order to do something which would have no effect whatever on the Soviet Union? I see the Games as a major, symbolic event and in that respect they are different from trading relationships. Trade satisfies the hard realities of permanent inter- government interests. That is a reasonable position to maintain so long as our exports to the Soviet Union are not the subject of control by the Co-ordinating Committee on Exports of Technology to Communist Countries.

If the Games symbolise peace and goodwill, why are they to be held in a country which is engaged in the invasion, occupation and suppression of another people? Why should they be held in a country which has no respect for all codes of international behaviour and no respect for territorial integrity. Why should they be held in a country which has no respect for the basic rights of its own citizens, and which has abrogated its obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Helsinki Accords? Given that record, I do not want my flag and all that it stands for raised at any Olympic Games held in Moscow. I think that the Opposition’s attitude on this question is deplorable. It says that an effective boycott would be significant and would embarrass the Soviet Union, and yet it says that it would oppose a boycott. Yesterday in the Parliament it showed its pleasure at the fact that an effective boycott may be prejudiced by Canada’s new stance. The Opposition believes that we should not attempt to seek an effective boycott. It thinks it proper that we should not express our indigation unless it is effective. That is totally unprincipled. The Labor Party says that one should not express a view unless one has the numbers. The Opposition has offered no significant response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It has sought to make apologies and excuses for it. It has criticised the Prime Minister for seeking an effective boycott, which it recognises as being an effective diplomatic objection. I fully support the efforts of the Prime Minister in seeking to condemn the Soviet

Union and in seeking an effective diplomatic response to its action. I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– It is a pity that the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean) tried to draw a parallel between the Soviet Union’s treatment of Jewish people and Hitler’s treatment of them. All members of this House and the overwhelming majority of Australians know that Hitler put millions of Jews in the gas chambers. There is no parallel whatsoever. It is a pity that the honourable member used that in his speech. It is one of his gravest errors. On the other hand, I congratulate him on his courage in supporting the Government’s attitude towards boycotting the Olympic Games. It shows great political courage. I am afraid that it is that political courage on which he will perish at the next elections. The Australian people will not wear the Government’s attitude in that regard. Not many years ago the cry from the Government was: ‘All the way with LBJ’. It was the catch cry in the late 1960s. All the way with LBJ we went. We find ourselves now in a similar situation. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) continually has flights of fancy about his standing as an international statesman. He landed in Washington with his entourage, which included the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar). I ask: Why was he accompanied by the Minister for Health and not by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), who is present in the chamber. Could it be that the Minister for Health was worried about the Prime Minister’s state of mind and tagged along to keep an eye on his blood pressure? What a pity that neither of them have their fingers on the pulse of the nation at this time.

At any rate, the Prime Minister got in to see Mr Carter immediately on this round in the United States, instead of sweating it out for days in a New York hotel room as had previously occurred. Perhaps overcome by the occasion the Prime Minister proclaimed, not ‘All the way with LBJ’, but ‘We’re a starter, Mr Carter. We are a starter in the Afghanistan affair’. No doubt he said to Jimmy Carter: ‘I am here to get my orders’. So the President dispatched his Australian messenger boy to Europe. Once again Australia had jumped in boots and all to be the first cab off the rank in the Afghanistan affair. Off he went, blundering into the international diplomatic scene, calling for actions which would worsen world tensions and possibly precipitate a full scale nuclear war.

Mr Cotter:

– Do you remember what you said about Indonesia?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie will cease interjecting.

Mr JAMES:

– Every time the honourable member opens his mouth I hear the words of a fool pour forth. The Australian public is not as gullible as the Prime Minister and his advisers would believe. It just happens that in 1 980 -

Mr Cotter:

– Do you remember what you said about Indonesia?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have warned the honourable member for Kalgoorlie to cease interjecting. I suggest that he take some notice of the Chair.

Mr JAMES:

-This year, 1980, is an election year in both the United States and Australia. The Government had to find some diversion to keep the people’s minds off the real issues of rising inflation and unemployment. The Government is using scare tactics. The Red menace might have worked in the 1950s, but the Australian electorate is too intelligent to fall for it this time around. This would be the first time in the history of Australia that the Government has had to go overseas to open an election campaign. It is easy to see that it is running scared.

Let us look at the facts on the issue of Afghanistan. I refuse to use the word ‘invasion’. I intend to use the word so frequently used by Government parties during that sadistic, cruel war in Vietnam, when the Tories would refer to the power presence, the United States presence. I intend to use that word wherever I can in referring to the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. Let us look at the facts. Afghanistan is a border state of the Soviet Union and has been under its influence since as long ago as 1919. It was written off many years ago by John Foster Dulles, the founder of the Central Intelligence Agency. There is a treaty of friendship between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Afghanistan, and all honourable members should know that. Last year was the 60th anniversary of their relationship. It is a fact that no country has had such a long period of good relations with Afghanistan as the Soviet Union has had. In that time, 70 industrial enterprises have been built there by the Soviet Union and 60 others are under construction. Works include two huge electricity stations, automotive repair plants, and oil, fertiliser and other plants. Russia has educated 1,800 specialists from Afghanistan and about 100,000 tradesmen. There are 1,500 Afghan youths at Soviet universities. Trade has now reached $US300m a year.

In April 1978 a revolution occurred in Afghanistan which established a government led by Taraki. The revolution was anti-imperialist, anti-feudal and anti-democratic in nature. The rebel army, led by the dictator Amin, aided and abetted by the Chinese and the American CIA, conducted a coup against the Taraki Government, killed Taraki, and murdered and gaoled revolutionaries, working people, intellectuals, patriots and preachers. They acted against the progressive aims of the April revolution, aided and abetted by the CIA, that monstrous organisation which was responsible for the Bay of Pigs debacle, the fall of the Allende Government, intrusion into Indonesian politics, and the overthrow of Sukarno. Listen to these facts. The Pakistani vessels Al Kalsum and Rustom sailed into the port of Karachi on 20 and 2 1 June last year. The first vessel arrived from Britain and brought nearly 2,000 tons of United States-made arms and munitions. The Rustom carried 8,000 tons of military hardware from China. So far none of these facts has been disclosed to the Parliament in this important and momentous debate.

Mr Porter:

– Why don’t you table it and be done with it?

Mr JAMES:

– Look, shut up. You are only a log of wood. You are not going to be here after the next election. You will not listen to facts, but the Australian people want to hear this. Weapons and materials were taken into the area of Peshawar and put at the disposal of mercenaries -

Mr Ruddock:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it possible to ask the honourable member to provide the sources of this information?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! There is no point of order.

Mr JAMES:

– The weapons and materials were taken into the area of Peshawar and put at the disposal of mercenaries being sent into Afghanistan. In 1979 the CIA’s representative, Louis Dupree, supervised the elaborate planning and implementation of operations against the democratic republic of Afghanistan from Pakistani territory. TheSydney Morning Herald associate editor, Peter Hastings, confirmed on 15 January 1980 that Afghan guerillas crossed into Pakistan for sanctuary and to obtain weapons. The Washington magazine Counter Spy- the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) has asked for authentic backing of my statements- has also revealed that the CIA is directly involved in training Afghan rebels in camps in Pakistan. CIA agents are operating on the Pakistan- Afghan frontier under cover of an agency against narcotics traffic and of the Asian fund of a United States organisation.

It has become clear that the United States wanted a friendly government in the area, and Afghanistan was the bunny. For a year now the United States has been without its monitoring stations on the border between Iran and the USSR, and Afghanistan appeared to be an ideal place for the new monitoring stations for spying on the Soviet Union. The U2 flights over Russia are not uncommon. In fact, the U2s still fly out daily from a Royal Air Force base in Cyprus. Their task would be made much easier if they could fly out of Afghanistan. Fortunately, Afghan forces loyal to the causes of independence and the April revolution, overthrew Amin, to the chagrin of the United States and China, and released political prisoners. A new government was established, headed by Babrek Karmal. The Karmal Government, under the Afghan-Soviet Treaty of 5 December 1978, decided to call on the Soviets for assistance in ridding the country of outside interference. Article 4 of the Treaty states:

Acting in the spirit of traditions of friendship and good neighbourliness, as well as the United Nations Charter, the parties to the Treaty will be consulting each other and with mutual consent will be taking appropriate steps to ensure security, independence and territorial integrity of both countries. In the interests of reinforcing defence potential of both parties, they will continue developing co-operation in the military sphere.

I firmly believe that the task of the Soviets is to assist the Afghans in repulsing aggression from the mercenaries in neighbouring Pakistan. I also sincerely believe that Soviet troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan once this aggression ceases. I do not believe that the Soviet Union has expansionist plans with regard to Pakistan or Iran. By necessity, it is the West which is attracted to the Middle East. The Americans have been in a state of panic since their influence in Iran declined. The West has always conjured up a picture of world wide catastrophe whenever its priviliges looked like being curtailed. This time the West’s dependence on Middle East oil is the cause. It is sheer hypocrisy for the United States, Australia and China to talk about their support for non-interference in other countries. Australia fought alongside the United States in that illegal, barbaric, sadistic, cruel war in Vietnam- the crudest war in the history of mankind. This time last year China invaded Vietnam and was responsible for directing the Pol Pot regime, one that this Government still recognises.

I believe that if there had been no Afghanistan, the hawks, the Tories, both here and in America would have found another pretext for aggravating the world situation. Those who sit on the Government benches tried last year by encouraging the Chinese to punish Vietnam- little Vietnam, a country which was ravaged and devastated by the West in that illegal war in the 1960s. They ended up with egg on their faces. The plan backfired. All that happened was that worldwide attention was focused on the brutal atrocities of Pol Pot, a man who murdered three and a half million of his countrymen. When the world finally focused its attention of Kampuchea, thanks to the dedication of journalists such as John Pilger and the plight of the millions of refugees, the West had to do a quick about face, claim ignorance, and quickly cover up with a gigantic humanitarian campaign to aid those poor unfortunate people. The Government was lucky to get out of that one. A prominent television personality, Leonard Teale, came back from Kampuchea the other day and said that some of the shocking photographs of the atrocities committed by Pol Pot were too cruel to show on television. But that does not affect honourable members opposite. They have no conscience about the feelings of human beings. It is fortunate that some of us do not walk around with blinkers on. It is easy to see how the minds of the Tories work.

The United States is not backward in coming forward in attempting to influence and protect what it regards as its strategic economic global interests, whether they be in Vietnam, Chile, Iran or Cuba. Even today the United States insists on keeping a military base in Cuba and Guatemala, contrary to the wishes of the Cuban Government and people. Recently the United States has put the squeeze on Mr Manley, whom I met not long ago, and the people of Jamaica. The Carter Administration has decided that if Mr Manley does not moderate his pro-Cuban policies, the United States will use all available influence and pressure to drive him from power. That is great stuff. Tell me, is this not interfering in the day to day running of an independent country? Will the Prime Minister denounce this as a great threat to world peace?

Time will not permit me to more than point to a report of an article recently published in the Canadian McLean’s magazine. It says that American drug enforcement agents discovered Chinese near the Pakistani border. It states that at first the agents suspected that these could be Hong Kong Chinese heroin dealers planning to buy up the area’s huge poppy crop. But later what emerged was that they were aiding Pakistani guerrillas to fight in Afghanistan.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

– I am certain that the House will be very much aware that we will miss the full-bodied contributions of the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), when he retires at the end of this parliamentary session. I am certain also that the Soviet apologists will miss him too. As I sat listening to him, I realised that his words could have been those of Pravda, Tass or perhaps the new, tall, non-English speaking Russian Ambassador we now have or even the Russian Ambassador to Lusaka, Dr Vasiliy Solodovnikov, who seems to have been the architect of Russian methods and expansionism in various parts of Africa and west Asia. I will try to be less enthusiastic in my remarks than the previous speaker, but no less sincere.

Much has been said in this debate about the sacrifices that will have to be undertaken by the athletes of the world in the event of a boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow. But I wonder why so little is being said about the sacrifices that all peace-loving people in the world could be asked to make and probably will have to make if the continual trail of Soviet aggression so recently manifested in the callous invasion of Afghanistan is not stopped in its tracks.

The history of the Soviet and its aggression in the past 30 years need not be repeated in this debate, but I remind all honourable members that stopping Soviet aggression will not be an easy task. Sitting as we do in this dignified chamber, it was a particularly chilling experience yesterday afternoon to hear the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) mention but some of the military hardware and the muscle that the Soviet currently possesses. Honourable members will recall that the Minister said that 400,000 mines were held in the Soviet inventory. He was talking about mines that can be laid in the sea, many of which are so sophisticated that they cannot be detected. He said further on that the Soviet Union today has 350 submarines, 150 of which are nuclearpowered. This compares with 50 submarines which Doenitz started the last World War with. According to the information of the Minister for Defence, every year approximately 1,500 to 1,600 aircraft are brought into the inventory of the Soviet Union and most of them are deadly in their offensive weapons.

Do we really think that the Western world can sit down and say, ‘Poor old Afghanistan ‘, and do nothing about the 100,000 highly trained troops with the most sophisticated and lethal weaponry known in the world today? Equally, with the descriptions made by the Minister for Defence of some of the available Soviet hardware, do we really believe that there is room for military confrontation which would surely destroy the world? Of course not. We cannot sit down and ignore Afghanistan. We cannot sit down and suggest that we should confront the Soviets to the point of an ungodly and inhuman war. All the reasons given by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and others on this side of the House during the debate clearly indicate to me that with no Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan- surely the honourable member for Hunter is the only person in the world who really believes that the Russians will withdraw- to hold the Games in Moscow would be wrong, so very wrong. When the Australian public faces up to this fact they will accept it, albeit reluctantly, and ignore the red herrings that are being dragged into this House by the members of the Opposition.

To suggest, as the Opposition has done, that the magnificent young folk who are in line to go to Moscow will rise up against the Government is to underestimate the high standards of public morality that all athletes display and feel. As an aside, I should mention that my electorate of Cook does not export wheat, wool, rutile or whatever to Russia. But the Cook electorate does export and has already exported Olympians to Olympic Games. I was heartened to see several of such Olympians in my electorate supporting the principle that the Games should not be held in Moscow. In fact, these local athletes have seen fit to express their views quite publicly and in the local suburban Press in my electorate. They are not, I repeat, not, being political. They are accepting a moral stance that is not unique among young Australian sportsmen and sportswomen.

As a member of the now renowned Wheeldon committee which reported to this House on human rights in the Soviet Union, I shall resist the temptation to quote from the committee’s report, but I ask all honourable members and all Australians who listen to this Parliament or who read Hansard to read the report carefully and to see why we on this side of the House and honourable members on the other side of the House too, I am pleased to note, are appalled at the thought of the continuance of Soviet imperialistic expansionism. Do not let us think that the invasion of Afghanistan is anything less than a part of this trail that has gone on for 30 years. But why should we be interested? Honourable members opposite have been saying in the course of the debate today that this is a new-found interest by the Government. I refer them to the speech of the Prime Minister as recorded on page 261 of Hansard of 22 February last year in which the Prime Minister said:

The disturbances in Iran -

I emphasise the next words-

The instability in the Horn of Africa and Afghanistan, also have important implications for Australia.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock), in his geopolitical statement at about that same time, elucidated on the implications of power politics in the world. We were talking then, as honourable members will recall, of China sending X number of troops into Vietnam which had sent X number of troops into Kampuchea. Let us remember that, at the same time and leading up to that, 45,000 Cuban troops were brought to Africa under instructions from the Russians. Let me repeat the name of the Russian Ambassador to Lusaka: Dr Vasiliy Solodovnikov. That is a name that everyone interested in foreign affairs should know because that man has been masterminding the terrorism and the sale of Russian weaponry to Zambia and Mozambique. He masterminded the sale of Russian MIG aircraft to Zambia three weeks ago, not three years ago. Zambia, in one of the most sensitive front-line areas in the world, is buying MIG aircraft from Russia because Zambia said that it needed them for its own defence. Well, one would have to be a funny sort of observer in international affairs to see no significance in the timing of all these matters. Power politics in the world relates to something beyond Afghanistan. It is a tragedy that the world has ignored so many of these power plays by the Russians.

When some of us on this side of the House complained of these actions during the last decade we were accused of seeing Reds under every bed. I suggest that honourable members talk to the Afghanistans, talk to the people in most African countries, talk to the Vietnamese or the Burmese or the Tibetans, talk to millions of people living in small countries and ask them if they see Reds under the beds. My God, they have got no beds to sleep in. The Reds have taken the beds. They have taken the whole stinking lot. Let us not kid ourselves. The Afghanistan situation is not an emotive, impassioned thing that the Russians have suddenly decided to embark upon. It is part of a 30-year trail, a trail that we should be very, very aware of. From the Opposition has come the nonsensical statement that our Prime Minister has spoken out too much, has done this or has done that. As one of his supporters I say that I would have been disappointed if he had done anything less. Australians do appreciate his courageous actions in international affairs.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is just cheap rhetoric.

Mr DOBIE:

– I will not pursue some of the philosophical speakers opposite who cheapen themselves in this House by bringing forward left wing nonsensical policies, comparing what has happened in 150 years in Afghanistan with what has happened with other people in these parts of the world. The reality is that the Russians have cold-bloodedly, without any obvious first reasons, moved into Afghanistan. I invite honourable members opposite to talk to the Hungarians, talk to the Czechs, talk to the Poles, talk to the Albanians, above all talk to the Yugoslavs next week and see what we mean when we speak about Russian expansionism. Afghanistan is a symbol of what the Russians have been doing to the world for 30 years. Where do we go from there forward? We go on to say that some international action should be taken. For anybody to suggest that a third world war would be the answer, for anybody to suggest that a total embargo of foodstuffs to the Russians would be anything less than an invitation to a third world war is to speak as a fool. I say that to anyone in this House on either side who makes such a decision.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is better than being a hypocrite.

Mr DOBIE:

– I do not wish to take up too many issues that have been raised by honourable members opposite and I cannot hear the interjections. I think that Russia will find that it has bitten off more than it can chew. I remind honourable members that all of this took place at a time when Cuba had done very nicely, thank you, at the Third World conference of non-aligned nations in Havana. Honourable members will recall that it used such phrases as, ‘The nonaligned movements of the world should align themselves to Russia.’ I do not have the exact quotation but I think honourable members are all aware of what was said.

I hope to God that one of the effects of this will be that the influence of Russia amongst the allegedly non-aligned Third World countries will diminish. I have reason to believe that it has diminished and diminished quickly. If that is the case perhaps we will see a change of attitude towards the Cubans in Angola, a change of attitude towards the Cubans throughout the African continent. Perhaps we will hear an outcry from the Cuban civilians who find their war dead flown in at night because Castro does not want the planes to be seen in the daytime. Perhaps one outcome will be that in five years we will get a little stability in southern Africa. But let us not forget, when we start to move along that line, that three weeks ago the Russian Ambassador in Lusaka completed a deal for the sale of MIG aircraft and that that was after Afghanistan had been invaded.

Does anyone really think that the Russians will sit back and be nice about everything? I believe that the very least we can do is boycott the Olympic Games in Moscow. I say that with great compassion and reluctance. Some honourable members opposite have asked whether I would name the Olympians. Let me tell them that in the Cook electorate eight athletes are in the final teams for their sports. I can assure the House that their names are in the local newspapers. I invite honourable members opposite to go and read them. I have said in public elsewhere what I have said in the House tonight. Let us not, as members of this House, be fooled into believing that this is someting cheap, something related to politics.

As my honourable friend from Dundas (Mr Ruddock) asked earlier by way of interjection, do we really think that the Russians were asked to go into Afghanistan because elections were being held in 1980? Why do we think they went in? I shall conclude my remarks by saying that it was for exactly the same reason that the nazis entered the Rhineland in 1936. They thought that the subsequent Olympic Games would provide forgiveness and cover all else. It is in that light, perspective and setting that every honourable member of this House should support not only the Prime Minister’s actions overseas but his motion before the House tonight.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

– I support the amendment that was moved yesterday by the honourable member for Adelaide, Mr Hurford. It would remove the blatant exaggeration of the Government in stating that the Afghanistan situation is potentially the gravest threat to international peace since 1945. The additional paragraphs of the proposed amendment would strengthen the original motion. They suggest courses that the Government should pursue in Australia’s national interest and condemn the double standards now being practised. On the one hand the Government hectors and harrasses our Olympic athletes to stay away from the Moscow Olympic Games while, on the other, it maintains a business-as-usual trading relationship with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a relationship which results in a number of senior Ministers including the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) being the direct recipients of profits from the USSR.

Throughout the public discussion of the Afghanistan- Olympic Games issue, one resounding theme has come through again and again in the public mind. That is the hypocrisy of the Government’s actions and utterances. I refer to those of the Prime Minister especially. While the militarists and hawks opposite rant and posture on the evils of the USSR and why our athletes should stay away from the Games, those same militarists and hawks quietly collect their Russian roubles for the sale of wheat, wool and hides and see no contradiction in the use of Russian ships to transport primary produce from our ports. Their reaction to criticism of their double standards has been an attempt to smear their opponents, as did the previous speaker.

From the outset the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has made our position quite clear. He has stressed repeatedly that intervention by one country in the domestic affairs of another is a clear breach of international law, a gross abuse of the rights of man, a thoroughly immoral act. He has said that for these reasons the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan is, like China’s intervention in Tibet, that of the United States in Vietnam, that of Indonesia in East Timor and all similar cases, deplorable and deserving of the severest condemnation.

The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and other Government supporters have, by selective quoting and distortion, sought to misrepresent the statements of the Leader of the Opposition. The unassailable fact is that no member of the Opposition, no Australian can responsibly endorse the action of USSR in invading Afghanistan. That action must be condemned. However, as responsible citizens and as a people who wish to see peace prevail, we should try to understand accurately the background to the events that have occurred and not substitute rhetoric for fact and reason. We should all heed the words of the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) who said on 5 February 1 980:

The gravity of the current situation should not be overplayed or underplayed. . . this is not a time for extreme views, one way or the other. . . .this is a time for rational and objective thinking.

I am sorry to say that his advice fell on deaf ears, so far as Government supporters were concerned. For instance, one Minister believes that we need a war. Let me quote from the Saturday Evening Mercury of 9 February 1980. It concerns the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr

Groom) and is headlined, ‘A fighter who sees a need for war.’ The following is from a report of an interview:

There is’, says Ray Groom quietly, ‘a tremendous frustration building up everywhere, all over the world.

People are looking for scapegoats.

They need to let off steam in some way.

It is a terrible thing to say, but I sense that world-wide there is a need for a serious conflict.

You ask him does he mean a war? He looks very still, and tells you ‘Yes’.

That is a quotation from a long interview with the Minister for Housing and Construction which appeared in the Saturday Evening Mercury on 9 February.

The Prime Minister has sought to exaggerate, to bluster, to intimidate and to create fear and hysteria. He sought to suppress independent reportage of his trip abroad by excluding Dr Anne Summers from his personal and luxurious Boeing 707 flying hotel. Australians have asked themselves: Why? Why has he not conducted himself in a rational, honest and responsible manner, as have the leaders of India, Japan, West Germany and France? Why the hysteria? Why the exaggeration? Why the fear? Well, they have realised the answer. It is election year and he has resorted to the oldest ploy in the political handbook, from the times of ancient Spartacreate enough fear of foreign aggression and frighten the unemployed, the sick, the aged and the children and they may forget the mess this country is in, caused by the incompetence of this Prime Minister and his Government.

This Government has the greatest record of broken promises of any government in the history of Australia, with inflation leaping into double figures, unemployment at record levels, petrol prices more than doubled, diesoline prices almost trebled, Medibank abolished, health costs soaring and families $20 a week worse off after four years of the dead hand of Fraserism. What better ploy to distract the voters’ attention than to build up the Russian communist bogy, fear of Communist aggression? In the 1960s this Prime Minister was a leading hawk in portraying Vietnamese and Chinese communists as dangerous fanatics who were placing Australia in deadly peril. As Minister for the Army he was involved in the despatch of hundreds of gallant Australians to death. He participated in the great lie of Vietnam.

In late 1975 he and the Deputy Prime Minister referred in this chamber to the illiterate innocents of East Timor as communists, apparently backed by Chinese Communists, it seemed to them; and then the same two gentlemen turned a blind eye to the slaughter of those tens of thousands of East Timorese by Indonesia. That was not aggression, in their words. Now those same Chinese communists are cuddled to the bosom of this Government and this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister and this Government now dance to the tune of the Chinese communist Hu Chin, the Chinese communist fiddle. The Prime Minister’s exhortations on Afghanistan could well have been written by the Chinese speech writers. If we compare them with what has been issued by communist China, there is a great deal of similarity in the phrases used. Now the Australian people are told that it is the Russian communists who are the baddies, and that, in effect, after the slaughter of Vietnam it is all right now, the Chinese communists are okay and their money for primary produce is even better.

Mr Jacobi:

– It is mainland China now.

Mr MORRIS:

-It does not matter which China it is, the money is okay. That is the important thing. That is the hypocrisy of this Government’s actions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Order! The honourable member will watch his use of the word ‘hypocrisy’.

Mr MORRIS:

– I am very selective in my use of the word. It is accurate. This Government has no credibility. It cannot be believed. The Prime Minister cannot be trusted to tell the facts. Why cannot the conservatives opposite stand up as Australians and not as lap dogs of the United States of America and China? Why can they not present a foreign policy based on Australia’s independence as a caring, peaceful, developing nation of South East Asia and not be seen as dragging on the coat-tails of Uncle Sam and communist China? There are the questions that responsible Australians are asking.

Let me return to the fiasco of the Olympic Games boycott which is not supported by the majority of fair-minded Australians. Despite the Prime Minister’s harassment of our Olympians, there is discord in the Government ranks on this issue. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) said on 7 January that he was not moved by suggestions that the Olympic Games be boycotted because it was mainly a question for sporting bodies and he was not sure that the USSR would suffer from a boycott. Later, having been forced to change his tune, he refrained from entering this debate. He is the most important Minister of all and he does not enter this important debate. The Deputy Prime Minister, one month later on 7 February 1980, when asked about an Olympic boycott said -

Mr MacKellar:

– I take a point of order. Is it correct or allowable under the Standing Orders for the honourable gentleman to impute motives to the Minister for Foreign Affairs who cannot participate in the debate because he is not in Australia?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I regret to say that I did not hear the phrase, for reasons that are obvious to the Minister. I would ask the honourable member to be very careful. I will watch that in future.

Mr MORRIS:

-If the Minister wants to harass my speech and deny my right of speech, so be it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable member get on with his speech and that he address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr MORRIS:

-I am addressing the Chair. I made no imputation. I recited the facts. The debate opened on Tuesday. The Minister could have spoken on Tuesday. He should have been the second speaker on Tuesday. He did not speak. When asked about an Olympic boycott the Deputy Prime Minister said:

It’s a case of waiting and seeing . . . it’s too early at this stage to pre-empt this . . . the importance of what we are doing will depend on the response from other countries around the world.

Millions of Australians saw him utter those words on television newscasts. Later he also was humiliated by being forced to accept the Prime Minister’s policy of a boycott. Queensland Liberal Cabinet Minister Porter has described the proposed Olympic boycott as immoral, and bis views are supported by the Deputy Premier of Queensland, Dr Edwards. The Prime Minister has ruled out the withdrawal of passports to prevent Australian athletes attending the Games, yet it is abundantly clear that the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) would have the athletes’ passports withdrawn if the decision was his, and that well may happen yet. Then came the ultimate statement of hypocrisy from the Prime Minister. When in Honolulu he railed -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not impute the word hypocrisy’ to any member of this House. The honourable member will continue his speech.

Mr MORRIS:

– We heard the ultimate in imagination when in Honolulu the Prime Minister railed: ‘How many lives have to be lost before the revulsion of Olympic committees equals the revulsions of governments?’ I say to the Prime Minister and his grazier colleagues opposite:

How may lives have to be lost before their revulsion for Russian roubles equals their revulsion for the Russian Olympics?’ Answer me that question.

The Government’s case for the Olympic boycott rests on the expectation that if some nations stay away this will cause embarrassment to the Russian leadership in the eyes of the Russian people and that the Russian leaders will be seen to be punished for invading Afghanistan. That expectation is nonsense. Does anyone really believe that if the United States, Australia and a few other nations boycott the Games the moguls of the media in Moscow will tell the Russian people that those nations are absent because of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Of course they will not. Their absence will be seized upon to show the length to which this country, this conservative Government, this discredited Government and the United States will go to destroy the great concept of Olympic competition. That is the story that they will tell to the Russian people. They will not hear the version we are hearing in this country and in this Parliament.

Apart from the continued sale of foodstuffs and strategic materials to the USSR there is one other great hypocrisy- the use of cut-price Russian freighters to ship primary produce overseas. Last Thursday the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) announced the completion of the Government’s review of USSR shipping operations in Austraiian waters. His announcement deliberately avoided mention of the operations of the Far Eastern Shipping CorporationFESCOthe Russian shipping Une. Why? Because it carries primary produce exports at reduced freight rates from this country. While the Government rants against our athletes it grants immunity to FESCO because the Government’s supporters enjoy its reduced freight rates. Yet if one examines the background of FESCO, the Russian merchant fleet, and the training practices of the Russian Navy one will find that there is an interchange of crews and that there is a link between the crews of the merchant fleet and of the Russian Navy. But that does not matter; that is not a matter of security because the freight rate is right. In other words, as long as the freight rate is right, with this Government it is business as usual’. I declare this to be absolute hypocrisy.

There are those in the Government ranks who want war and who need war to justify their rantings. There are those in the Government ranks who are ready now to conscript other people’s sons to send off to foreign wars. That has always been the conservative party’s answer to youth unemployment and economic stagnation through the years of history. Let me quote to the hawks opposite and to those who rant and rail from part of the editorial of the Australian Financial Review- that left-wing journal which was referred to earlier- of Tuesday, 12 February 1980. It must be left wing nonsense because anybody who opposes the views of those sitting opposite can utter only left wing nonsense! The Australian Financial Review said:

Inevitably there will be a temptation to resort to cheap demagoguery, to portray the Russian bear as a rampaging beast intent on devouring the world.

If the truth was that simple then it would be apparent to more than Malcolm Fraser. The Russian factor has to be kept in perspective.

No greater injury could be done to our long-term foreign and defence policies than to have them distorted by a perceived necessity on the part of a strong Prime Minister to create a monster which has the short-term effect of unifying the nation.

There is a danger we may, through the pressures of domestic electioneering, slip into a dangerously misdrawn picture of the international scene.

Again, the difference. The article continues:

As the Foreign Minister, Mr Andrew Peacock, has discovered, Kampuchea is of much greater consequence and concern to all of our neighbours than Afghanistan.

Even in the most favoured anti-Soviet scenario of a Russian takeover of the Iranian oil fields there is a failure to appreciate that the oil supplies of the Middle East face a far greater danger from the forces of internal revolution than they do from Soviet expansionism.

That is the editorial from the Australian Financial Review. As I said, it is not renowned as a left wing journal, but it certainly would be described by this Government as a left wing journal. Add to those the words of George F. Kennan, the former United States Ambassador to Moscow, who said in the final paragraph of an article in the Melbourne Age:

If there was ever a time for realism, prudence and restraint in American statesmanship it is this one. Nothing in the passions of electoral politics could serve as the slightest excuse for ignoring this necessity.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for Mitchell I remind the House that references to the Prime Minister should be to his proper title of Prime Minister and not to his Christian name and surname although the words ‘the Fraser Government’ may be used. From now on I will interrupt anyone who transgresses in this regard.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you, with your generous application of the Standing Orders, please ensure that whenever reference is made to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) the same courtesy is also extended and that he is addressed by his proper title.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I certainly will. Thank you for reminding me.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

– I am extremely disappointed with the attitude of the Australian Labor Party on this issue. The free world is united in its approach to the condemnation of Russia and in the actions that it is taking to make sure that its views are understood by the Soviets. The Australian Labor Party, unfortunately, is so divided that it cannot make up its mind as to which track it is going to take. It cannot decide, for instance, whether we should impose sanctions against the Soviet Union, whether we should condemn and impose sanctions or whether we should condemn, impose sanctions and conduct boycotts. Tonight we had the prospective Leader of the Opposition saying in Melbourne in his current role as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions that he will go much farther with the union movement than the members of the Labor Party in this House are prepared to go on this important issue.

Let us try to assess what the rest of the world is saying. Let us try to assess why 2 1 members of the non-aligned movement in fact co-sponsored the United Nations resolution calling for the total withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. Why would some of these nations be so concerned about this matter? Many of them are far from the area of activity. Many of them in fact have little contact with Russia. I can understand why countries such as Kampuchea, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Kuwait, Malta and Saudi Arabia would be concerned about the Russian action in Afghanistan. What will these small independent countries be thinking now? They will be asking themselves: ‘Can we place as much trust in our trade and relations with the Soviet Union as we have in the past? Where do we stand under threat? Can we allow foreign advisers into our country to assist us? Can we believe everything the Russians say? Can we believe that the Soviets are earnest in their commitment to assist us to develop? I do not believe that they can be. It concerns them greatly that, by this one act, the Soviets have broken trust with so many small independent countries right round the world.

That is the situation with the small, independent non-aligned countries. What about some of the larger countries? What about Europe? What about Great Britain and America? What about South East Asia and the rest of the free world? What have they said? In fact, they joined with those non-aligned countries in a vote in the General Assembly which decided by 104 votes to 18 to support the condemnation of the Soviet Union. I think that I should refer first of all to Europe. Despite what has been said here today and in previous days, the resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 15 February is highly significant. Members are elected to that Parliament from the whole of Europe, representing their countries in large electorates, representing the views of different groups of people with different philosophies and different governments. They do not speak for political parties; they do not speak for their governments, they speak for the people whom they represent. The motion that was adopted by the European Parliament on 15 February called upon the governments of the nine countries to express their abhorrence of Soviet oppression and aggression by advising their national Olympic committees to ask their teams and individual athletes not to take part in the Olympic Games in Moscow. That is the view coming out of Europe of members of parliament representing their constituencies and representing their people.

The second part of the resolution states that the European Parliament invites the governments of the member states to take measures for the Olympic Games to take place on agreed international territory as soon as possible. Finally, it instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, the presidents of the national Olympic committees of all member states and the national parliaments of the nine members. There we have the view of Europe. Tonight this House will carry a similar motion, despite the opposition- in many instances, the halfhearted opposition- of members of the Opposition. It is disappointing that there cannot be some sort of bipartisan view on this foreign affairs matter. If one analyses the speeches that have been made by members of the Oppositionby the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and even by its leader, Mr Hayden- one will find that they spent some time -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member for Shortland made the point a little while ago that if I am to object to people referring to the Prime Minister as Mr Fraser, I should leave the title of the Leader of the Opposition inviolate.

Mr CADMAN:

– I stand corrected. After the Leader of the Government, Mr Malcolm Fraser, made a statement on this subject he was followed by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden. Mr Hayden began by attacking the character of the Prime Minister. He did not deal with the issue. He tried to vilify him and his personal life. He then moved on to make a cursory assessment of the defence decisions and concluded by again abusing the Prime Minister. It was hardly a comfortable speech. It was a speech in which the great divergence of views within the Labor movement was reflected. The views of the left wing unions were there, as were the views of the Queensland branch of the Labor Party, in which there are great problems. Mr Hayden himself would understand clearly -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! Use the term ‘Leader of the Opposition’.

Mr CADMAN:

– May I say in that instance ‘ the Hayden Opposition’?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-No, that is not allowed either. The term to use in this House is Leader of the Opposition ‘.

Mr CADMAN:

-The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, himself faces great difficulty with the Queensland branch of the Labor Party. The views of that branch and the wish of the left to be more dominant were there in his speech, too. He needs to talk to a number of people. . I am really disappointed that the Labor Party cannot throw off all of those things that affect its decision-taking on important matters like this. I would have liked to have seen the Leader of the Opposition come into this place and say: ‘Yes, we condemn. Yes, we are going to assist. These are the things we suggest that you should do’. The Opposition has tried to do that through an amendment but, really, that amendment seeks to placate the left of the union movement, the left in the Queensland branch of the Labor Party. It does nothing more than that.

Of course, we in this House are aware of the importance of the United States of America and of what President Carter has said, but I think that what the current President has said needs to be put in context. If one looks back at the Soviet role in the Middle East one will see that in the late 1940s it has practically written off any possibility of influencing that sphere. Following the Second World War it felt that it could not be a force, an influence, in the Middle East. But by 1956 it was meddling in the Suez crisis. In the early 1960s it had gained an influence in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Algeria and later in Libya. In 1967 it was involved in the Six Day War. It helped to provoke it. In fact, that war gave it the excuse to being 50 warships into the Mediteranean. So gradually since 1940 we have seen the increasing interest of the Soviets in the Middle East. In the 1970s we have seen an increasing influence in and, in fact, the domination of countries such as Ethiopia, Angola and North and South Yemen. We have seen the Soviets gaining influence in Iran and Afghanistan.

Detente continued to survive between the Soviet and the Western world during this period of build-up and incursion into small, non-aligned countries. So detente may well have existed during that period. It may well have been an important thing for the major powers. It should have been an important thing in the Soviet’s relations with non-aligned countries. Later on, we had Brezhnev declaring at the twenty-fourth party congress, at the end of March 1971, the change of direction. He stated:

We declare that, while consistently pursuing its policy of peace and friendship among nations, the Soviet Union will continue to conduct a resolute struggle against imperialism, and firmly to rebuff the evil designs and subversions of aggressors. As in the past, we shall give undeviating support to the people’s struggle for democracy, national liberation and socialism.

That statement was endorsed later by Soviet President Podgorny in 1973. He stated:

As the Soviet people see it, a just and democratic world cannot be achieved without the national and social liberation of peoples. The struggle by the Soviet Union for the relaxation of international tensions, for peaceful coexistence among states and different systems does not represent, and cannot represent, a departure from the class principles of our foreign policy.

There we see clearly stated the capacity to disregard the independence on non-aligned countries. The arena of international struggle thereby expands to include the internal policies and social structures of countries, mocking the traditional standard of international law that condemns interference in a country’s domestic affairs. So it is that today and in the last few weeks we have seen the Soviet Union taking on and taking over a non-aligned country- Afghanistan. How can we give expression to our feeling on this matter? We can certainly say that we would seek to humiliate the Soviet Union by not sending Australian athletes to Moscow. I think that is part of the story but the rest of the story is that we have continued to look for other areas. The short term decisions that we have taken are to do such things as supporting United States action in relation to grain embargoes, a review of Soviet shipping and in fact the cessation of Soviet cruise shipping operations from 3 1 May, an indefinite suspension of action on the two fishing feasibility projects, an indefinite suspension of visits by Ministers and senior officials between Australia and the Soviet Union, the indefinite suspension of the periodic consultations conducted by senior representatives of the Australian and Soviet ministries and non-acceptance of Soviet approaches to establish direct air services between Australia and the Soviet. So the list goes on. We have done much more as a composite short term package, lifting the Australian voice and, shortly the voice of the Australian Parliament, in protest over what has been done. We have a limited capacity.

I return to my point of greatest concern, which is, that there is division on this matter within the Labor Party. I wish that the vote that we will take could be a free vote so that those opposite would be free to cross over to this side of the House. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and members of the other place have spoken in favour of the Government’s action. I think that the Labor Party is split wide open on this issue. I do not think that it can discern a direction that it would take if it were in government. Would members opposite make a loud noise and say to the rest of the world: ‘We condemn but we will do nothing.*? That is what they have said to this House and that is what their amendment states. The amendment to the proposition put by the Government clearly says: ‘We will make loud noises and sit on our hands ‘.

Now, come on, I want somebody from the other side to say where the Labor Party stands. The Leader of the Opposition did not say that. He put forward no proposals. There have been inconsistent and varying speeches in every instance from the other side. There is no policy on this matter. No firm view or line can be taken by the Opposition. It is a matter of extreme disappointment for the Australian people. Who is seeking to make short term political gain? Who is seeking to create a divergence of views within the Australian community? I am really disappointed that the Labor Party cannot make a decision on this important foreign affairs matter. It indicates to me that it has not the capacity to rule as a government. It will not and cannot be elected because its members cannot make up their minds. They show so clearly the outside influences that work on their party, whether it be the branch of the Labor Party in Queensland that is affecting their leader, whether it be the left wing union movement, whether it be the unions which support China or Russia or whether it be the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions or members of their own Party here in this House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I rise to support the Opposition’s amendment. The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union was and is a brutal and flagrant abuse of power and breach of human rights. Its behaviour stands to be condemned. I suggest that the people of Australia will not accept the bland statements, the hysteria and the double standards of this Government. Last March, speaking in a foreign affairs debate, I made the following observations:

I suggest that any debate on this subject over the last decade must consider the energy equation and how critical that factor is in geographic and strategic terms.

I also said that the West needed to evaluate the following contingencies: A terrorist strike in the oil fields or in the narrow straits of the Persian Gulf; the growth of Soviet pressure in the region; some new twist to the Arab-Israeli conflict; a struggle for pre-eminence within Saudi Arabia, Iraq or Iran; or the accession to power of a Gaddafi in Saudi Arabia. The mistake, I suggest, has been to assume that the Arab-Israeli conflict represented the major threat to the West’s oil supplies and that it was therefore necessary to press for a settlement of the conflict to secure the oil. The United States ignored the risk that instability in the oil market could be generated by domestic events in the Gulf rather than by the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus at a time when the United States was concentrating its energies on the Israel-Egypt negotiations, oil supplies became disrupted by the shutdown of Iranian crude oil production. This shutdown reduced Saudi Arabia’s ability to play the role of oil price monitor because it was forced to use up its leverage prematurely by increasing its production to its maximum sustainable capacity in order to meet the shortfall from Iran. The anxity about the Persian Gulf has been long standing as far as the Saudi Arabians are concerned, particularly in relation to the fragility of their monarchy. Saudi Arabia’s enormously increased wealth and the presence of millions of foreign workers from neighbouring countries have created staggering security problems. Saudi Arabia’s worries over the growth of Soviet influence in Iran are being reinforced by Moscow’s expanding presence in both North and South Yemen.

Whilst maintaining close ties with the Marxist Government in South Yemen, the Soviet Union reportedly has recently completed large arms deals with the Government of North Yemen. This, I suggest, is a critical area and it includes Oman. It needs constant scrutiny. It is another Middle East flash point. We need to note, I suggest, the International Energy Agency’s warning last year that the energy gap will far exceed 10 million barrels by 1990. This gap, this shortfall of 10 million barrels a day, is equivalent to the loss, or rather if you like, a complete cut-off of Saudi Arabian crude oil of 9.5 million barrels a day. The economic strain on the world is inevitable and enormous. To compound this one needs to appreciate the dilemma of the Soviet Union.

The USSR does have massive potential reserves of oil in Eastern Siberia but their inaccessibility, the scale of investment and the technology required to develop these fields are a massive problem. Authoritative resources predict that by the 1990s the Soviet Union will be a net importer rather than a net exporter. If anyone studies its oil field reserves in Baku last year he will find that they are starting to decrease rather than increase. Unless Russia is given access to tertiary recovery levels, which means Russia cannot extract its maximum from its Baku fields, that is going to compound Russia’s problem to get a slice of Middle East crude oil.

There was great hysteria by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) about a cut-off of the Gulf. We ought to examine that. In the view of many oil and military specialists the threat is so ominous that it essentially rules itself out. The straits are so crucial that only a nation willing to risk all-out retaliation by the rest of the world would dare to interfere with it. The Straits of Hormuz connect the Persian Gulf with the Indian Ocean. On an average of every 21 minutes a tanker passes through the straits. Two thirds of all the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ oil flows through the straits, a third of the United States’, most of Japan’s and Western Europe’s. Any cut-off would immediately trigger the International Energy Agency’s sharing mechanism. It would mean a shortage for everyone. That would wreak unimaginable havoc not only on oil consuming countries but also on the exporting countries. It demands the particpation of those who rely on oil from the Middle East and those who are concerned with global peace and stability. It demands consultation with countries in the area which might be threatened.

The Straits of Hormuz are and will remain a vital waterway for the consuming world. In the view of some analysts it is probably the biggest reason why a confrontation between outside powers in the Straits may never take place. It is so vital that all the countries involved, I believe, would exercise power to protect it. I cannot imagine that that is how the Russians would like to start World War III, because that is what we are talking about. I suggest that the most critical challenge the world faces is to reach a global consensus on a rational distribution of the world’s oil resources. The situation demands careful thought, not hysteria, irrational or ill considered rhetoric.

Afghanistan has been receiving aid from the Soviets. It has been accepted as their sphere of influence since 1958. Might I suggest that one of the motivating reasons for Russian intervention in Afghanistan and ultimately in Baluchistan will be its rich mineral and particularly energy deposits. The 5,000 Soviet advisers in Afghanistan before the Soviet invasion were mainly central Asians. They not only failed to put down local Moslim guerillas but they may have been suspectible of holding sympathies for them. The emphasis on religion in Iran’s revolution and in effect the Afghanistan insurgency is the product of the two Soviet-backed coups in 1978 and 1979. It has brought Moscow a worrisome danger of contagion, if you like, about the Soviet Union’s estimated 40 million Moslems. Since 1956 the Russians have been trying to establish credentials as a Moslem homeland by encouraging contacts with outside religious leaders.

The compelling reason for Moscow’s intervention may well have been the fact that Amin had increasingly come to be viewed by Moscow as a potential Tito. However, in the process, and not for the first time, Moscow regrettably has encouraged the very thing it fears most- the hostility of the United States, a closer working relationship between Washington and Peking, a more expensive arms race that will reduce the living standards of its own people and more than likely an invitation from several frightened Middle East countries to open their naval and air bases to the Pentagon. The only ally left outside of Iran is the reliance by the United States on the military dictatorship of General Zia, who has not the support of the overwhelming proportion of the population and, to say the least, his control is tenuous.

Since Karmal, the new Soviet installed President of Afghanistan referred to the legitimate aspirations of the Baluchis. The Baluchis have strong feelings about ethnic identity and deeply resent the repression they receive from Tehran. For the Iranian Government, holding onto Baluchistan is a question of capital importance, but one could suggest that the Soviets could coordinate twin rebellions in both the Baluchis and Pashtuns. Launched from staging points in Afghanistan, proclaiming a people ‘s republic of Baluchistan, the rebels may welcome a Soviet naval facility to the Port of Gwadar in Pakastani

Baluchistan, commanding 750 miles of coastline near the Persian Gulf. I think it was Holmes who one said: ‘A page of history is worth a volume of logic’.

Let us look at Iran. The modern history of Iran has been largely a history of great power rivalry. The current controversy involves certain elements that are peculiar to the middle of the twentieth century- nationalism, oil and the EastWest struggle. The great power rivalry of the past has traditionally been a rivalry of conflicting national interest. Today the rivalry is also one between two different ideologies; the Utopia of the Soviet Union and the less dramatic appeal of democracy from the West. There is a third ideology- nationalism- precipitated particularly by the nationalisation of oil during the Mossadegh crisis and subsequently. Iran truly epitomises a people struggling for their own sense of national identity, a people sick to death of being the pawn in the power game between the major powers. The Third World must be given the priority that it deserves. No longer can the Third World be relegated. Within Iran the legacy has left smouldering fires of everlasting feuds and hatreds, growing discontent and disillusionment in Tehran, Esfahan, Abadan and Azerbaijan.

Those blind to history are the very ones who make it. Khomeini would be ignoring historical fact if he believed that his Government will be everlasting. Every act of opposition in Iran, every terrorist attack breeds another and is a flame from that smouldering fire. We ought to heed the lessons of history. When a nation is left without a leader or a strong guiding force it is always a grand usurper, the international opportunist, who takes power with golden promises. It is rarely a Garibaldi or Bolivar. France was internally torn when a little Corsican captured it, took power and spread this power at a cost of three million French lives. Italy was ripe for plucking when a short newspaper publisher marched on Rome. Germany without leadership amid bickering factions was easy prey for Hitler. What is going to be the fate of Khomeini in the event of a continued internal strife? One can only speculate that a military faction will take over.

I will conclude in the few minutes I have left with these observations. I have listened attentively to this debate. Much of what was said by Government supporters was hysteria, much of it was ill-considered and much of it was illinformed. History has a very bitter lesson to teach. From now on governments throughout the world will have to understand and recognise that people are important, not governments. The world at the moment is suffering from a legacy and we, as politicians, would be well-advised to study it, particularly in the Middle East. Much of the conflict in the Middle East stems from three important factors- the San Remo agreement in 1920, the Balfour declaration and, tragically enough, American Central Intelligence Agency involvement and British involvement in the demise of Mossadegh in 1953. Consequently we had the Shah and, subsequently, we have Khomeini. If the Russians have not learned after their trampling and oppression in Hungary and in Czechoslovakia, if the Americans and this Government have not learned after their tragic intervention in Vietnam, and now in Afghanistan, there is one simple lesson that they will learn. The Third World is going to remind the major powers of it. That lesson is contained in this very simple dictum: That people throughout the world, particularly in the Third World, will prefer to be misgoverned by their own people than well governed by foreigners. This Government has no credibility at all if it goes to the nation on its double standards. If it is going to block the Olympic Games it ought to go all the way.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Hurford’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. ( Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 33

NOES: 69

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question now is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I wonder whether the Government would consider deleting from the first part of its motion the words at the end, namely: ‘and as potentially the gravest threat to international peace and security since 1945’. If those words were deleted the Opposition would vote for the motion. That is the only dispute that we have about the motion. We believe that to claim that in relation to the Afghanistan situation is an expression of wishful thinking rather than fact. That situation, as grave as it is, cannot be equated with the Berlin blockade, the conflict in the Middle East especially the Yom Kippur war the Cuban crisis or a series of conflicts which potentially had the ingredients for leading to international, even super power, conflict. If those words were deleted there would be bipartisan support for the motion. That is the only difference that we have with the Government on this motion. In every other respect we accord with what is said in it.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– The Government is not prepared to accept the deletion of those words because they are placed in the motion for very deliberate reasons which have been explained to this House on a number of occasions. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has raised the point I will explain the reason again. I hope that he will then accept them because then there would be a bipartisan approach on this particular issue. As I have said from the outset, that would be a good thing for Australia. The Berlin crisis, the Korean

War and the Cuban missile crisis all had two elements of great importance to all of us. They all represented a threat to the determination, to the integrity of the will of Western nations, but beyond that those matters were much more of a regional rather than of a global importance.

Mr Hayden:

– Come off it.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The honourable gentleman should remember that at the time of the Berlin blockade the United States of America had overwhelming nuclear superiority and there was no question that the Soviet Union would attempt war on that occasion. That ought to be known and it ought to be understood. Of course, the circumstances now are different. The Soviet Union has at least nuclear parity. It has a superiority in conventional arms. The thrust to Afghanistan, whatever the motives, as has been explained opens the opportunity to create opportunities in relation to control and influence over oil supplies which are vital to Europe, Japan and many other developed and underdeveloped nations. For quite specific reasons it is that additional ingredient that caused the Government to put in that motion those words to which the Leader of the Opposition takes objection. For the reasons that the Government has given, it is not prepared to accede to the wish of the Leader of the Opposition. Willy Brandt, a socialist from Germany, has expressed precisely the same view in the European Parliament that I have, as have many others. They are the views expressed by the European Parliament in its resolutions and they are the views and opinions that were given to me and to the Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock) during recent visits overseas. They all confirm the view expressed in that motion. The Government will not withdraw from it and therefore I suggest that the question be put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 283

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Labour Movement- Tasmanian Election- Housing for the Aged- Effect of Agent Orange on Vietnam VeteransAfghanistan Olympic Games- Unemployment Benefits: Army Reserve Service- Fishing Industry- Fuel Prices

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Through the Parliament I wish to speak to the progressive people of Australia and especially to the Australian labour movement. The tactic of divide and rule has been used often by conservative forces in times of crises in order for them to reassert and to maintain their control. We face a crisis now, not only within Australia but in the whole of the Western world. As our movement in Australia is a broad coalition of forces, and as it is made up of people from all ages, from different ethnic groups, and from different political positions, it is vulnerable to division. We have to take care that the conservative forces are unable to open up these divisions through racism, sexism or scare tactics. That means that we must work together patiently and discuss the questions that face us in order to develop a common response to our common enemy. The enemy will try to divide us, whether on the question of strike action or on the question of foreign policy. It may be Afghanistan this week and perhaps Kampuchea next week. Our enemies will grab at anything and distort it for their own purposes.

Honourable members are aware that in relation to domestic and foreign affairs I have consistently tried to express the viewpoint of the Australian labour movement and progressive people. Honourable members are aware of my attitude to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I believe that no nation has the right to impose its interests on another nation by political, economic or military means. The principle underlying this position is the right of people to selfdetermination within their own borders. Consistent with this principle we have supported selective trade boycotts against those countries where repressive minority regimes have denied the rights of the majority of people to selfdetermination. We have protected and supported calls made by oppressed people for the union boycotts of trade against apartheid in South Africa and against the brutal military junta in Chile. As a matter of principle we support the rights of unions to engage in boycott action. Union members have not only a right to defend and to improve their working conditions in their jobs but they also have a responsibility to protect society from any negative impact of the work that they are called upon by employers to perform.

Union boycott action has been taken in response to questions from people struggling against oppression. So far as Afghanistan is concerned I want to point out two significant factors: First, there is not sufficient evidence to support the hysteria from those who, for their own purposes are claiming that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is a part of an attempt to thrust forward into the Persian Gulf. To the contrary, the Soviet Union does not need access to Western oil supplies. In fact, Western Europe is dependent to a large extent on Soviet supplies of energy- coal, oil, natural gas and electric power. Second, because of the interrelationships between the economies of Eastern and Western Europe and the Soviet Union, any retaliation by the Soviet Union against boycott actions by other nations could lead to a serious disruption of Western European economies. Australia’s own economic base would be affected.

When we consider those factors we have to consider the position of Australia. An aggressive and inflammatory position by Australia in boycotting trade with the Soviet Union may cause a more profound disruption of Western European economies than of the Soviet economy. Australia should be playing its role in trying to lower the pressure in the present conflict. This is not a time for inflammatory statements or grandstanding by any sector of our community. Boycotts of trade or the Olympics are not in our interests nor in the interests of the rest of the world. More and more there has to be a sane approach to this situation from all sections of the community.

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

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

-Today I heard an Opposition spokesman- the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young)mention Nareen and wool in attacking the Government about Afghanistan. I was surprised that he did that. Even Tasmania has a property called Nareen which exports wool, and I believe that several other Australian companies or people export wool under the name ‘Nareen’. I thought I would make that point just to defend the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on this occasion. Sometimes I am accused of not defending him.

Another thing I should like to talk about very briefly is the Tasmanian by-election. What a con job it was! The first con job we had was when we had an election in Tasmania. Then we had a byelection and Mr Hawke came to Tasmania to help to support Mr Batt. He walked through the streets of Hobart pleading with everybody to vote for Mr Batt. It was the biggest con job ever. The Australian Labor Party promoted in Hobart a person by the name of Mr Green, a former member of the Labor Government, and made him No. 1 on the ticket. Then suddenly there was great publicity for the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Batt. He was made the martyr of the Left. It was said that he had been crucified by the Left. His cause was promoted and then in came Mr Hawke, the most publicised man in

Australia, the person being promoted by the Labor Party Left -

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How did he go?

Mr GOODLUCK:

-Mr Batt won. Poor Mr Green lost his seat as a result, and stupid Tasmanians accepted it. Mr Hawke, the most publicised man in Australia, even came to Tasmania! The women in the streets were kissing Mr Hawke. Even the reporters in Tasmania publicised this man. We are all stupid. He would not have a brain in his head, yet everybody in Australia publicises him. We are going to make him the Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr Holding:

– He is a friend of mine.

Mr GOODLUCK:

– You are frightened of him. However, I have to get off that subject and on to a very important one. We have been livened up by Mr Hawke and the big con job in Tasmania. Mr Batt was elected- a record vote- and poor Mr Green lost his seat. The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) is trying to interject. I wish he would come to Tasmania. I will take him on any time.

Mr Cotter:

– Why don ‘t you -

Mr GOODLUCK:

-Be quiet. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie says too much in the party room. You might be a bully there but you cannot bully me. You killed my poor friend the honourable member for Wilmot, but you will not kill me.

Honourable members:

Honourable members interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order. I ask the House to maintain decorum. For the information of the honourable member for Franklin, the amplification system of the House is operating.

Mr Cotter:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I claim to have been misrepresented. I have never killed anybody in my life.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Kalgoorlie will resume his seat. When the House comes to order, I will again call the honourable member for Franklin.

Mr GOODLUCK:

-I think honourable members opposite will agree with me that in Australia today we are confronted with a real problem, a selfish problem, relating to the elderly. There are many thousands of elderly people who are finding it very difficult to get accommodation. As members of the Government and of the Opposition, we should realise that Australia is a very selfish place. Each year we abort about 60,000 babies and we allow in about 50,000 migrants, and about 14,000 for humanitarian reasons. By the year 2000 we could reach zero population growth. I believe that governments should start to formulate a policy on population and development. They should realise that in the long term the elderly of Australia will need help and assistance. We as a Government have done a lot and we will do a lot more.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I want to draw to the attention of the House what seemed to be an unfortunate occurrence today when the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) refused me leave to make a statement following his speech to the Parliament on the agent orange issue. My interest in this matter stems simply from the fact that in my electorate I have half a dozen ex-servicemen who are affected. I was interested enough to attend a meeting called by Vietnam ex-servicemen. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Burns) was present, as was the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe). I think that both those gentlemen are as concerned as I am about the plight and predicament of these ex-servicemen and their families. I join issue with the Minister on his statement. These men are not merely entitled to claim justice, they are entitled to claim that justice be seen to be done. I say to the Minister that it is important that he satisfies not the honourable member for Isaacs or myself but those Vietnam veterans who have a very real and human plight.

It is not good enough for the Minister to come into this House and say in terms of the proposals to conduct an inquiry that there has been some criticism. The Minister knows that the criticisms came from these ex-servicemen when the proposals were first made. They wanted an open judicial inquiry so that they could test the evidence and adduce evidence on their own behalf. We are talking about the known effects of 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T and dioxins, all of which are known as agent orange. Then there are agents white and blue, agent blue being based on an arsenic compound. I find it disturbing that the Minister made a serious misstatement of fact, and he knew that it was a misstatement, when he said in this House that there was no conclusive scientific evidence at this time that any conditions, except chloracne, reported by veterans or any deformities in their children are related to any of the chemical components of agent orange or other herbicides used in Vietnam.

I ask the Minister: Does be believe that statement to be accurate and true? If he does, how does he account for the fact that in his own office less than seven days ago he had occasion to have evidence put before him by the scientific adviser to the Vietnam veterans association, Dr Evans of Melbourne, a man with considerable qualifications. In the presence of the Minister’s own adviser, Dr Evans pointed to an article published in the World Health Organisation publication, Volume 15 of 1977, which dealt with the known effects on man of dioxin. That article pointed out that these chemicals do not produce just chloracne; there was evidence that satisfied the World Health Organisation that such chemicals also had adverse effects on the liver, the heart and the urinary tract. They also affect hearing, smell and touch and related to depressive and neurotic conditions. The Minister does not deny that that evidence was put to him; indeed, I am told that her thanked Dr Evans for that information.

Yet the Minister walks into the House and makes a statement which is calculated to mislead the people of Australia as to the effects of these herbicides. I do not regard that as a proper state of affairs and I believe that it requires an answer from the Minister. Why did he choose a form of inquiry which will exclude submissions from interested persons or organisations going directly to those who are responsible for the conduct of this inquiry? The Government has virtually chosen a form of inquiry which is under the control of the Minister, and it is not good enough.

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

Mr YATES:
Holt

-This evening, for a few fleeting moments and with 15 years of work in international affairs, I would like to make some passing references to what has been happening in world affairs. I do this for two simple reasons. Firstly, I understand that I was the only member of this House who wished the House to return from recess to pass a motion of complete condemnation of the Soviet Union immediately its actions in Afghanistan took place. Secondly, I believe that I am the only member of this House who has been to Afghanistan during the last eight months and who has had the opportunity of discussing the situation with Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister, Mr Dhost, with members of the Afghan Government, with the British Ambassador in Kabul, with the Oriental secretary and with Australians living in Kabul and in and around Afghanistan. At the time of the Suez crisis, the Chief Whip turned to me and said: ‘You will not be speaking in this debate because you know too much’. I am sorry that this evening, owing to a protracted argument between the Government and the Opposition, I was not given the time to speak to the House.

Firstly, I am absolutely certain from my visit to Afghanistan that it was absolutely well known and understood that there was a distinct and absolute threat of Soviet intervention. Indeed, this was the common discussion and I am at a complete loss to think why the presidential staff said that they were unaware of such a threat and were taken by surprise. This is a most incredible situation. Secondly, the reasons why the Soviet action took place were quite clear to anybody who had been in Afghanistan. I would like to have more time to go through those reasons but unfortunately I will not have time to go through them tonight. However, there was one absolutely fundamental reason and that was that the Soviet was not going to see a government in Afghanistan which possibly could be hostile to the Soviet Union or which could in any case cause any disturbance either to Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan or to any of the central Asian countries. So that was the first fundamental problem. It was done because the Soviet Union is a country with 263 million people of whom only 163 million are white European Russians. The rest are part of the Soviet’s enormous empire captured by the czars. The Soviet therefore controls one of the world ‘s greatest empires from the Polish borders right across to the islands it occupied from Japan in the Pacific. Its problem was the 40 million Moslems in central Asia.

I will say a little more about the situation in Afghanistan. There will probably be another opportunity for me to explain the situation to the House far more clearly and at far greater length. But Her Majesty’s Opposition must realise, and the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) should know better too, that it was not just the Soviet Union which was interested in Afghanistan. Surely he knows that German foreign policy from 1904 was always one of interest in Afghanistan. Surely the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, being an intelligent man, would know that German is the language spoken everywhere by businessmen Surely he knows that the Germans trained the Afghan police. It is amazing that the Opposition should make such excusing remarks about the Soviet Union’s particular attachment. Nevertheless, let us hope that the Soviet Union can rind a way out. If she can keep the gas supplies she can get from that country- nobody even mentioned that issue- and if she can be sure that Afghanistan will become neutral, then there may be some hope. In this, Mrs Gandhi will be playing a very important part. But the world crisis is one thing and one thing only: The complete collapse of cooperation and understanding between the two super nuclear powers. I say to honourable members that I am sorry I was not given the chance to speak earlier.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I want to raise more than one matter in this short adjournment debate. The first matter I wish to raise is one which I think the Government should take into consideration. President Carter, when announcing his initiatives relating to Afghanistan and other places, indicated that those who suffered financial loss because of those initiatives would be compensated by the Government of the United States. On Monday of next week, those people who in good faith paid deposits on visits to Moscow for the Olympic Games have to make a decision on whether they will meet the full cost of the tickets they have reserved or else forfeit their deposits. Those people who make what most likely would be a rational judgment not to take the risk with a large amount of money which they most likely cannot afford, will be asked to suffer the loss because of events beyond their control. But I do not want to say any more about that matter because I think it is selfexplanatory. It is a matter which the Government’s conscience has to play with and on which this Parliament will not have any influence.

I wish to raise, very briefly, one other matter. Today, a deputation from Victoria came to this Parliament in connection with the conditions of service of Defence Force reserves. In this Parliament today, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) raised a matter relating to restrictions on compensation cover which is available to persons in Australian Government services who are required, because of the nature of their employment, to take risks beyond those which would normally be expected of an employee. That situation also applies to the defence forces. Those persons who serve in a theatre of war are in fact covered by the repatriation Acts. Persons who enter the reserve forces and who, in the course of their training or other activities directly related to that service are injured, have a maximum cover for compensation purposes of six months. No matter what the nature of the injury, or how serious the injury, they are barred from further compensation. They are on their own. In Victoria, they have been advised to take out insurance with a private commercial insurance company to cover what is properly a responsibility of the Commonwealth. It is not my intention to canvass the debate which has already taken place but I make the point that any suggestion that the Government is going to increase the importance of or the numbers of persons in the reserves must be taken with a grain of salt while situations exist where the Government is not prepared to accept its obligations in respect of persons in that service.

At this time I take the opportunity to make one other point about the reserves. The Government has embarked upon a campaign, one in which I have taken part, to encourage employers to give recognition and support to employees who take part in reserve military activities as persons, quite properly, who are doing something of value for their country. However, the Commonwealth Government does not give that support to its employees when they take part in reserve services. In fact, if a person becomes unemployed in a period shortly before he undertakes the normal training period which reservists are expected to undertake annually, and thus becomes ineligible for unemployment benefits, that person first loses the benefits while he is engaged in reserve activity- which arguably may be correct- and is subsequently required, upon the completion of his training, to serve a seven day waiting period before his benefits are restored.

The Commonwealth asks private employers to support employees who take part in Army reserve activities but finds itself unable to support equally those people who, through no fault of their own, have become unemployed for some period before the three months during which they undertake military service. By Government decision, such people lose a week’s unemployment benefit upon their return from training. This, if I may say so, is miserly and irresponsible.

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

Mr SAINSBURY:
Monaro · Eden

– The Australian fishing industry is one which in past years has often been forgotten. It is one which over the years has not attracted the attention of many private members of this House. Only recently did a group of private members, for the first time, I believe, form any sort of cohesive and meaningful committee in order to prosecute the aims of extending good will towards the fishing industry and of representing it as well as possible in the forums of the Parliament and the Ministry. That committee consisted of a number of senators and honourable members, including the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron), the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) and the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) and myself. It has had in the past two years a great deal to do with the fishing industry. It has attempted to come to grips, for the first time as a group of private members, with many of the industry ‘s emerging problems.

The fishing industry is now far bigger than many other primary industries that traditionally have received a great deal of attention in this House. It is far bigger, for instance, than the apple industry, far bigger than most of the horticultural industries, if not all, far bigger than the egg industry and as big as the pig industry. It is a very large industry and one which exports substantial quantities in addition to providing a great quantity of fish for home consumption. Also it has great potential for import replacement.

Therefore, it has been rather perturbing to me in recent months to note that, during a period when we have been fulfilling many of our obligations under the Law of the Sea, our fishing industry has felt that it had a great deal to complain about concerning the actions of the Federal Government. Fishing industry representativesin the small ports especially- have often said that the feasibility fishing ventures and Japanese long line agreement into which we have entered recently have been sellouts. I have been very sensitive to those views, as has the Government.

I would like to place on record that we do have obligations, under the Law of the Sea, to allow foreign fishing vessels and fishermen to enter the 200 nautical mile Australian fishing zone if our own fishermen have no interest in harvesting its resources to the maximum yield sustainable. Also, with respect to the Japanese long line agreement we have an obligation based on the fact that in any case they have been fishing in our waters for some 20 or 30 years. They have been catching marlin and tuna. It is gratifying to note that in the course of the first negotiation, which expires in some six months, we were able to move the Japanese fishing boats out some distance from their traditional grounds.

I want to say three-things briefly. At this stage it will be imperative for the Government, at the end of the feasibility studies, to have some cooling off period. For instance, in respect of squid fishing, many Australians, having seen the success achieved by the Japanese in the feasibility stage, are anxious to participate. More and more Australians are wishing to engage in that activity.

Secondly, it is imperative that in the renegotiation of the tuna deal with the Japanese the views of Australian fishermen should properly be taken into account. I am afraid that last time they were not. Thirdly, it is imperative that the Government continues the trend begun in recent months of consulting closely the Australian Fishing Industry Council, the body that recently has pulled much of the industry together. Given those things I think we may expect good relationships between the Government and the Australian fishing industry- a very important and often not recognised Australian export and home consumption industry.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) (10.57)- During recent weeks motorists and others have suffered a further increase in the cost of fuel prices. This has been a severe blow and a crippling penalty which is spelling ruin to many people in my electorate and in other country areas. However, the significance of this has been overtaken by the advent of the Afghanistan situation in the headlines of the nation’s newspapers. It has also been overtaken by the concern about the Afghanistan situation on the part of this Parliament. Yet when each of us fills up his tank the 5c a litre rise does not fail to hit home.

Earlier this month, the Treasurer (Mr Howard), showing clear signs of guilt as he felt the shame of this rip-off wind fall oil revenue, was hinting at a possible reduction in taxes. But like the last election promises, an excuse was soon found to delay retribution. Now the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said that he is glad that firm commitments to reduce taxation have not been made because oil revenues could be used to bolster defence in the face of the situation in Afghanistan. It is no wonder that the people are saying that we are heading for another khaki election. There is no doubt that defence will play a big part but I say to the Government that it will be unwise to ignore the fact that as the motorist fills up his tank its policies will hit home to him.

The Labor Party has made it known that it would break the relationship between Arab crude oil prices and Australian prices. If Labour was in power today fuel prices would be 30 per cent lower. We are aware that import parity prices are having a wider effect on the economy; that it is sending many farmers and transport businesses to the wall; that it is making it nearly impossible for school leavers to find work. Also, we are aware that sales of new motor vehicles are slowing down because citizens are worried about the cost of running them. We are aware that dealers recorded the worst December-January sales in many years. That was after a year in which fewer cars had been sold.

As this Federal Government enters its final year its promise to tackle inflation has failed. Record unemployment is still with us and more and more school leavers have been forced to join the ranks of the unemployed. I warn this Government, regardless of what happens in Afghanistan -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted.

Mr Adermann:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the debate be extended.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The debate may continue until 1 1.10 p.m..

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · Fisher · NCP/NP

– I am very disappointed indeed in the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) on a couple of accounts. Tonight in this chamber he attacked me and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs about a statement I made. I would have thought that he would have done what other members of the House do when they intend to do that, that is, to pay the Minister the courtesy of telling him that they intend to to speak. It was quite fortuitous that I heard the honourable member’s speech.

Mr James:

– He was doubtful about getting the call.

Mr ADERMANN:

– Nevertheless, that is a courtesy I would like to see observed; and it has been observed in this House. I was disappointed in another regard. Earlier today the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), the Opposition spokesman on these matters, spoke very reasonably and sensibly on what is a very emotional, vexing and important matter. He deplored the political approach to this question because it will worry the people whom we are trying to help. It was the political approach that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports took tonight. I am disappointed that he saw fit to do that. He took out of context certain words that I used in my statement. There have been a number of inquiries and investigations. There is not yet conclusive evidence that the disabilities and the sorts of problems we spoke about today which are suffered by veterans of Vietnam can be directly attributable to herbicides. We have not got that type of evidence. Yet we have not sheltered behind that. This Government has said that if there is a connection or a problem, we want to find it; and we have moved to ascertain it. I would have thought that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports would have recognised that, but he took those matters out of context.

He quoted Dr Evans. I have spoken to Dr Evans and I will speak to him again. We have had very amicable discussions, as I have had with the Vietnam Veterans Association. We are not at war; we are in consultation. If the honourable member for Melbourne Ports would like to speak to Dr Evans again he might find that Dr Evans is quite disappointed that he is homing in on dioxin and agent orange specifically, because that is not the impression I got from Dr Evans. Therefore, I claim the he has taken out of context what Dr Evans has said and has used it to make a statement which maligns me and which is neither fair and reasonable nor accurate.

The honourable member also said that access to some type of judicial inquiry is wanted. The veterans already have access to the Repatriation Boards, the Repatriation Commission and the Repatriation Review Tribunal. Also, we have extended the avenue of appeal to give them a right of further appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and to the Federal Court on matters of law. I am pleased to say that already a number of cases have been taken to both of those areas for judgment. We are not trying to hide the facts; we are trying to ascertain the facts. I deplore taking this matter into the political area. People are genuinely worried about this matter, as am I, the Government and the Department.

Mr Holding:

– That is right. You should have presented an accurate statement to the Parliament.

Mr ADERMANN:

– I listened in silence to the honourable member. I thought he would grant me the courtesy of doing the same. Courtesy seems to have departed from the honourable member. Therefore, I take the accusations that the honourable member saw lit to make against me in this House tonight and I throw them back in his teeth.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday next.

House adjourned at 11.5 p.m.

page 291

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Parliament House Design Competition (Question No. 5058)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 8 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What associations, past or present, have any of the judges for the new Parliament House design competition had with any of the finalists for the competition.
  2. Does the Government consider any such associations to be ethical.
  3. What responsibility did the National Capital Planning Committee, as the advising and supervising body of the National Capital Development Commission, have for approving the brief for the new Parliament House design competition.
  4. What were the names of the members of the National Capital Planning Committee at the time of approving the brief.
  5. Did any of those members have access to the brief before its publication to other competition candidates.
  6. What are the names, occupations and backgrounds of the jury chairman and the judges for the new Parliament House design competition.
  7. What are the names, and what were, at the time, the occupations of the jury chairman and judges for the (a) National Art Gallery competition, (b) High Court competition, and (c) first and second stages of the National Archives Building Competition.
  8. Which architectural firm was commissioned to design the (a) National Art Gallery and (b) High Court.
  9. What are the names and countries of origin of the 5 finalists in the new Parliament House design competition.
  10. 10) Which buildings have each of these finalists been involved in designing.
  11. Which authority was responsible for commissioning the design of Commonwealth Government Offices in Belconnen, ACT, and who was the head of that authority at the time.
  12. Which authority conducted the first stage of the competition for the National Archives Building, and who was the head of that authority at the time.
  13. Which authority was responsible for commissioning the design of the proposed National Museum in Canberra, and who was the head of that authority at the time.
  14. 14) Which architect has been commissioned to design the National Museum, and when was that commission decided.
  15. Do the rules of the new Parliament House competition exclude an architect who is awarded the contract for Parliament House from associating with any architect who has been involved as a judge of the competition in carrying out the project.
  16. 16) Is it a fact that the architect, Mr John Andrews, prior to his departure overseas in the 1950s worked as an employee or associate of Mr C. F. Madigan of the firm Edwards, Madigan and Torzillo.
  17. Is it a fact that Mr C. H. Waite worked as an employee or associate of John Andrews in Canada and Australia between 1971 and 1976.
  18. If an overseas architect wins the new Parliament House design competition, are there any conditions which require that architect to be registered in Australia or to be associated with an Australian registered architect.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by the Parliament House Construction Authority that:

On 22 November 1978 the Prime Minister announced that the Government had decided to proceed with the design and construction of the New and Permanent Parliament House and that the building would be completed in 1 988 as part of the nation ‘s Bicentenary Celebrations.

To ensure that the project will be completed on time and within the cost budget, the Government has established the Parliament House Construction Authority to undertake and carry out the design and construction of the Parliament House.

The Authority accepted the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee for the New and Permanent Parliament House and the Royal Australian Institute of Architects that the most appropriate method of selecting the designer of the new Parliament House was by a two stage architectural design competition.

The Competition was conducted under the auspices of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. The Competition Conditions were based on the standard competition conditions of the Institute.

In accordance with the terms and conditions of the Competition the Registrar and the Assessors have maintained anonymity and complete security throughout the conduct of the assessment. At no stage since the first entry was received by the Registrar has he or the Assessors been aware of the architect or firm or any particular whatsoever relating to the name of the registrant responsible for any particular design submitted. The Assessors became aware of the names of the prizewinners and finalists only after the prizewinning entries had been selected. It is intended that the Assessors will be kept unaware of the relationship between each entry and its author until the conclusion of the second stage assessment.

I am advised that the answers to the specific questions raised by the honourable member are:

1 ) There is no association between any Assessor in the Competition and any finalist. Past associations, under the rules of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, did not preclude entry to the Competition nor did the Parliament House Architectural Competition Conditions.

Neither the Competition Conditions nor the code of professional conduct of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects have been infringed. The question of ethics does not arise.

The Parliament House Construction Authority is responsible for approving the brief for the Parliament House Design Competition. The National Capital Planning Committee had no responsibility for approving the brief.

At the lime the brief was approved by the Parliament House Construction Authority the names of the members of the National Capital Planning Committee were:

Mr A. J. W. Powell (Chairman)

Professor L. K. Stevens

Professor L. B. Keeble, M.C.

Mr R.W.Meyer

MrN.J.Platten

Mr B. M.Wilson

MrR.P.Vallee,M.L.A.

Mr K. B. Myer,A.C, D.S.C.

Mr H.C. Richards

In accordance with the Parliament House Construction Authority Act 1979, Mr A. J. W. Powell as Commissioner of the National Capital Development Commission is ex-officious a member of the Parliament House Construction Authority which is the promoter of the architectural competition. As a member of the Authority, Mr Powell had access to the brief before its publication. In a similar way, Professor L. K. Stevens, as one of the Assessors of the Parliament House Architectural Competition, had access to the brief when it was referred to the Assessors by the authority for their consideration.

Sir John Overall, C.B.E., M.C, Architect, Town Planner, Member of the PHCA. Mr John Andrews, Architect, Director of John Andrews International. Senator Gareth Evans, Victoria. Mr I. M. Pei, Architect from New York, Partner in I. M. Pei and Partners. Mr Barry Simon, M.P., Member of Federal Parliament. Professor Leonard Stevens, Engineer, Dean of Faculty of Engineering Melbourne University.

(a) Sir John Overall, C.B.E., M.C, Commissioner, NCDC (Chairman). Mr J. A. McConnell, Architect, Vic. President of Royal Australian Institute of Architects. Mr Robin Boyd, Architect.

Sir John Overall, C.B.E., M.C, Commissioner, NCDC (Chairman). Sir Garfield Barwick, G.C.M.G., Chief Justice. Mr E. H. Farmer, Government Architect, NSW. Mr D. Jackson, Architect. Professor P. H. Karmel, C.B.E., Chairman of Australian Universities Commission.

Mr A. J. W. Powell, Commissioner, NCDC (Chairman). Professor R. G. Neale, Director General of Archives. Mr C. F. Madigan, Architect. Mr J. H. Andrews, Architect.

The designs of the National Art Gallery and the High Court of Australia were determined by Architectural competition in both cases. As a result of the competitions the architectural firm of Edward, Madigan, Torzillo and Partners was commissioned to design the National Art Gallery, and the firm of Edwards, Madigan, Torzillo and Briggs Pty Ltd was commissioned to design the High Court of Australia building.

The names of the five finalists are:

John Bickerdike, resident in London U.K.

John Denton, of Melbourne

Colin Madigan, of Sydney

Richard Thorp, of New York, USA

Christopher Waite, resident in British Columbia, Canada.

The Parliament House Construction Authority has no information concerning countries of origin of the finalists.

10 ) The Parliament House Construction Authority has no comprehensive information about the buildings which each of these finalists have been involved in designing.

The National Capital Development Commission was responsible for commissioning the design of Commonwealth Government offices in Belconnen. ACT.

Sir John Overall was Commissioner at the time of the commissioning of the design of the Cameron Offices and Benjamin Offices in the Belconnen Town Centre.

12 ) The National Capital Development Commission. Mr A. J. W.Powell.

13 ) No design has been commissioned.

14) No architect has been commissioned to design the National Museum.

The rules of the Parliament House Architectural Competition do not specifically exclude an architect who is awarded the contract for Parliament House from associating with any architect who has been involved as a judge of the Competition in carrying out the project. However, the Competition is conducted in accordance with the regulations of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and with the Institute’s endorsement. Those regulations state ‘no architect appointed as an assessor for a competition may thereafter act in any capacity as architect, joint architect, or consultant for the work . . . ‘.

Mr John Andrews was employed in the firm of Edwards, Madigan, Torzillo while a student between 1954 and 1956 and for approximately six months after graduation as an architect before his departure for overseas in July 1 957.

Mr C. H. Waite was employed as a draftsman by John Andrews International between 1968 and 1975 in both Canada and Australia.

The Parliament House Architectural Competition Conditions require that to be eligible to compete, architects had to be registered in Australia or to have formed an association with an Australian registered architect before 31 August 1979.

Drill Core from Maralinga (Question No. 5059)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Was a drill core from Maralinga sent from Adelaide by the South Australian Mines Department to Lucas Heights, NSW, in November or December 1978; if so, why was the core sought.
  2. In what condition was it transported from South Australia.
  3. 3 ) Which firm transported the core.
  4. How was it received at Lucas Heights.
  5. 5 ) What safety precautions were taken in transit.
  6. How is the core presently stored.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Yes; it was required forPlutonium analysis in connection with a survey of the Maralinga Atomic Weapons Testing Range for residualPlutonium contamination conducted on behalf of the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council.
  2. As extracted.
  3. IPEC.
  4. Neither the package, nor its contents, had been damaged in transit.
  5. To prevent physical damage to the core it was held securely in place by wooden spacer blocks and substantial foam rubber inside a South Australian Mines Department core transport box (approximately 1.5 metres x 0.5 metre x 0.13 metre). Packing conformed with the NSW Radioactive Substances Act.
  6. It is stored in sealed containers, appropriately labelled.

Commonwealth Offices, Geelong (Question No. 5074)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:

  1. What was the cost of (a) window cleaning, (b) the temporary removal and installation of furniture, (c) the installation of dial operated phones and their subsequent replacement with touch phones and (d) the installation of special photocopying machines at the Commonwealth Offices in Geelong, Victoria, in preparation for a forty minute occupation by a single member of the Prime Minister’s staff.
  2. Why and by whom was it ordered that specially installed dial phones were to be replaced by touch phones.
  3. Will these costs come out of normal cleaning and maintenance allocation for the Commonwealth Offices, Geelong.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Temporary office facilities were made available in the Commonwealth Offices at Geelong and were used by three members of the Prime Minister’s staff on the occasion of the Prime Minister’s visit to the Geelong region on 21 September 1979.

Two touch telephones were temporarily installed. Installation cost for these two telephones was $ 1 60. There was no special installation of dial phones and their subsequent replacement with touch phones as stated in the question.

Charges for the photocopying facilities amounted to $194.80.

Telephone and photocopying charges will be met by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

No special charges were involved in window cleaning or temporary removal and installation of furniture. Rountine window cleaning under an existing contract was in progress.

Optacon Machine (Question No. 5079)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:

  1. Has the optacon machine for use by visually handicapped persons been included in the schedule of items excluded from sales tax.
  2. Was the price of this machine increased recently from $3276 to $3666; if so, will he determine why the price was increased, and not reduced as a consequence of the sales tax exemption.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. The prices quoted are exclusive of sales tax. I am advised that the higher price in Australia is entirely due to an increase in the price charged to the Australian importer of the machines by their American manufacturer.

Medical Fees: Bulk Billing (Question No. 5082)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:

In relation to bulk billed payments made by the Government for disadvantaged persons, how many claims originated from (a) community health centres, (b) Aboriginal medical services, (c) private doctors and (d) other sources.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The identification of all medical services provided by organisations such as community health centres and Aboriginal medical services is not possible through the bulk billed payment system.

In processing claims for payment, services provided are identified with the individual registered medical practitioner concerned. Whilst the system is able to identify some doctors as being associated with community health centres and Aboriginal medical services, this is not possible in all cases.

I am therefore unable to categorize the information in the manner requested. However, in the twelve month period from November 1978 to October 1979, my Depanment paid medical benefits for the following total number of services bulk billed on behalf of disadvantaged persons.

Oil Stockpiles (Question No. 5083)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 1 4 November 1 979:

How is a nation ‘s oil stockpile calculated according to the International Energy Agency definition to which the Minister’s predecessor referred in answer to my question No. 3828 (Hansard, 6 November 1979, page 2654).

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

According to the International Energy Agency’s Agreement on an International Energy Program, a nation’s stockpiling obligation, in terms of days covered, is calculated on the basis of the ratio of total oil stocks to net imports of both crude oil and oil products, converted to a crude oil equivalent.

Total oil stocks include a country’s stocks of crude oil, major products and unfinished oils held in such places as refinery tanks, bulk terminals, pipeline tankage, barges, intercoastal tankers, oil tankers in port, inland ship bunkers, storage tank bottoms and working stocks.

Atomic Reactors (Question No. 5084)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice on 14 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What reactor types are under investigation by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission as possible replacements for HIFAR.
  2. Which of these reactor types would use (a) low enriched uranium, (b) high enriched uranium, (c)Plutonium and (d) other fuels.
  3. What is the nature and quantityof fuel required for use in each reactor type.
  4. Is the Commission considering the establishment or operation of fuel reprocessing facilities in conjunction with the possible construction of any of these reactors.
  5. Would the construction of any of these reactor types oblige the implementation of any new safeguards or security measures by the Commission; if so, what is the nature of these measures and what is their estimated cost.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Only ‘swimming-pool’ type reactors are being considered in the designcost study for a possible replacement reactor for HIFAR.

  2. (a) and (b)- Swimming pool reactors are generally fuelled with highly enriched uranium. Modifications to the design to permit operation with uranium fuel of lower enrichment are being considered in the design/cost study.

    1. and (d)- None.
  3. The basic fuel material would be enriched uranium. The precise composition and form of the fuel elements will emerge during the course of the study. The quantity of fuel required would be dependent upon the reactor power level necessary to accommodate envisaged user applications.
  4. No.
  5. No.

Radiopharmaceu ticals (Question No. 5085)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:

  1. Did the 1977-78 annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission say in relation to the cessation of the free supply of radiopharmaceuticals by the Commonwealth Government on1 January 1978 that it is anticipated that this new policy which has resulted in free competition in Australia involving worldwide radiopharmaceutical manufacturers will have some adverse effect on the demand for Commission supplies.
  2. What radiopharmaceuticals are produced and supplied by the Commission.
  3. What alternative sources of supply are available to the Commission’s regular customers for each of these radiopharmaceuticals.
  4. To what extent has demand for the Commission ‘s products been reduced, or its otherwise anticipated growth restrained, as a result of this policy.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The following radiopharmaceuticals are produced and supplied by the AAEC:

From HIFAR:

Sodium bromide(82Br) injection

Chromium(51Cr)EDTA Complex Injection

Copper (64Cu) EDTA Chloride Injection

Copper(64Cu) Acetate Injection

Sodium Iodide ( l3lI) Solution

Sodium Iodide ( 131I ) Injection

Potassium (42K) Chloride Injection

Sodium (24Na ) Chloride Injection

Sodium Phosphate (32P) Injection

Technetium-99m Generators

Sodium Pertcchnetate (99mTc) Injection

Technetium (99mTc) Labelled Liver Colloid Injection

Technetium (99mTc) Labelled Macroaggregate Ferrous Hydroxide Injection (Lung compound )

Produced/Dispensed from Imported Stocks:

Cyancobalamin (57Co) Vitamin B 12

Sodium Chromate (51Cr) Injection

Ferrous (59Fe) Citrate Injection

Gallium (67Ga) Citrate Injection

Triiodothyronine ( 125I) Solution

Thyroxine (125I ) Solution

Xenon (127Xc) Gas

Xenon (133Xe) Gas

In addition the AAEC makes a freeze dried renal agent and a freeze dried DPTA compelling agent for use with technetium-99m solution to prepare radiopharmaceuticals.

  1. Providing the customers have access to radiopharmaceutical processing and dispensing facilities, all but the following materials can be obtained, either by direct import or through local agents of overseas suppliers:

Sodium bromide injection

Copper acetate injection

Copper chloride injection

Potassium chloride injection

  1. The effect of this policy has been a reduction in the AAEC’s Sydney market for sodium pertechnetate (34 per cent) and technetium lung compound (55 per cent) because some larger hospitals have changed to use of imported generators and kits for these products. The consequent reduction in the value of radiopharmaceuticals supplied by the AAEC has been compensated for by the processing and distribution of radiopharmaceuticals in Melbourne ( formerly carried out by Australian Radiation Laboratory) and by expansion in markets for other products (e.g. iodine- 1 3 1 and gallium-67.

Radiopharmaceuticals (Question No. 5086)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does the Australian Atomic Energy Commission normally supply radiopharmaceuticals based on technetium-99m on a daily basis to users in Australia.
  2. Is the technetium-99m produced by using the Commission ‘s reactor HIFAR.
  3. Are ready-to-inject radiopharmaceuticals based on technetium-99m normally prepared daily; if so. what arrangements are made by users of technetium-99m based radiopharmaceuticals during both regular short shut-downs and extended shut-downs of HIFAR.
  4. How frequent are regular short shut-downs of HIFAR, and on which occasions has the reactor been shut-down for extended periods.
  5. What is the price per unit of (a) technetium-99m solutions, (b) molybdenum-99 solutions and (c) technetium-99m generators supplied by the Commission.
  6. What is the price per unit of equivalent radiopharmaceuticals supplied from alternative sources.
  7. Are arrangements for the supply of technetium-99m based radiopharmaceuticals during shut-downs of HIFAR regarded as satisfactory by the Commission and by its customers.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The technetium-99m is produced from molybdenum-99, which is produced in HIFAR.
  3. Yes. Production schedules for molybdenum-99, the parent nuclide for technetium-99m, are designed to produce extra stocks to accommodate regular short shut-downs. Prior to extended shutdowns orders are placed with overseas suppliers for regular weekly and bi-weekly shipments of molybdenum-99.
  4. Regular shutdowns occur every 4 weeks and last for four to five days. Extended shutdowns of HIFAR for planned maintenance have occurred at the following times: September 1960, April 1962, October 1963, May 1966, April 1970, May 1973, May 1975 and September 1979.
  5. (a) Technetium-99m solutions: The Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) supplies technetium-99m in many ‘ready-to-inject’ forms, with all necessary radiopharmaceutical preparation and quality control performed by the AAEC-

  6. The following prices are estimates as imports are low and prices vary considerably depending on freight rates, recalibration allowance and probable discount for longterm contracts.

    1. Technetium-99m solutions: Prices from alternative sources should not be compared directly with AAEC prices, as the products are supplied in different forms. In estimating prices from alternative sources, an allowance has been included to cover the costs of establishing an inhouse pharmacy for ‘milking’ of generators, radiopharmaceutical preparation and quality control. Since this cost would depend on the size of the hospital and patient load, a range of prices is given-
  1. Molybdenum-99 solution: The price including freight for bulk purchases by the AAEC during HIFAR shut down varies from $1.00 to $1.40 per GBq, depending on quality and origin of material.

  2. Technetium-99m generators: Generators available from overseas are not directly comparable in respect of model or activities supplied and would incur a high freight charge. Other than a few of very high activity not available from AAEC, none is imported. Prices would vary depending on contract and supplier, but are believed to be worth $100 to $ 1 30 more than the AAEC prices.

    1. The arrangement whereby AAEC acts as bulk importer and assumes responsibility for supply as usual for technetium-99m, iodine-131 and most other radiopharmaceuticals is appreciated by the customers. It is not satisfactory to the Commission because the freight costs are high (18-30% of total costs), and despite extra material being bought to allow for delay in delivery, delays of more than 24 hours in supply of molybdenum-99m from overseas mean reductions in quantity supplied to customers and this has occurred on several occasions. Some short-lived nuclides usually supplied by the AAEC are not available (see answer to House of Representatives Question 5085 ).

Pre-employment Spine X-rays (Question No. 5092)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:

Is it a fact that the Ford Motor Company and Alcoa, Geelong, Victoria insist on pre-employment lumbo-sacral spine x-rays; if so, what are the benefits and/or disbenefits of such routine procedures.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

I am advised that pre-employment lumbo-sacral spine x-rays are not required by Alcoa, Geelong, Victoria.

They are, however, performed on male applicants for factory employment at the Ford Motor Company, Geelong, but are not compulsory. I understand the x-rays assist with the placement of men in jobs that will not aggravate any existing lumbo-sacral spine condition.

Quick-Eze (Question No. 5108)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Taxation Office removed the 15 per cent sales tax on Quick-Eze in February 1979.
  2. ’ Did Life Saver Australia Limited ‘s half-yearly report to 31 January 1979, show an after-tax profit increase of 40 per cent despite no sales growth.
  3. Did Life Saver Australia Ltd increase the wholesale price of Quick-Eze by 15 per cent immediately after the lifting of the sales tax.
  4. Will he refer this case to the Trade Practices Commission for an immediate investigation into the propriety of Life Saver’s action.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Quick-Eze, which had previously been taxed at the rate of 1 5 per cent, was classified by the Australian Taxation Office as an exempt product in February 1 979.
  2. I am not aware of the figures referred to.
  3. I do not monitor movements in the wholesale prices of goods such as Quick-Eze.
  4. I am advised that the matters raised do not appear to involve a breach of the Trade Practices Act.

Political Advertising (Question No. 5116)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) ls he able to say whether in the 1 979 South Australian election campaign, large amounts of political advertising were sponsored by employer associations and some individual companies.
  2. Is he also able to say whether these employer associations made direct requests to their member companies for donations to sponsor these advertisements.
  3. What action will the Government take to ensure that payments by companies for political advertising purposes are not claimed as a tax deduction under sub-section 51(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. I ) and ( 2 ) These questions do not relate in any way to my responsibilities as Treasurer.

    1. The Commissioner of Taxation, who is responsible for the administration of the income tax law, has advised that claims to deduct the cost of advertising are examined to determine whether there is a sufficient connection between the expenditure incurred and the derivation of a company’s income to warrant the allowance of a deduction under section 51 ( 1 ) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Unless it is established that expenditure on advertising is, in fact, necessarily incurred in carrying on a company’s business for the purpose of deriving its assessable income, a deduction is not allowable for the expenditure.

Petrol Prices (Question No. 5117)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

Further to the Minister’s predecessor’s answer to my question No. 4592 concerning the price of a litre of standard petrol in (a) the United States of America, (b) Japan, (c) West Germany, (d) France, (e) Great Britain, (f) Italy, and (g) Australia as at 21 August 1979 (Hansard, 14 November 1979, page 3039) can the Minister say what percentage of each of those countries’ consumption of petrol is supplied by domestic oil production as at that date.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

No. The amount of petrol produced per barrel of crude oil depends significantly on the type of refinery configuration as well as the crudes processed at such refineries. No statistics are known which attempt to match the refinery production of motor spirit and other refined products against particular crudes processed.

Tax Avoidance Schemes (Question No. 5123)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) In the course of its investigation of tax avoidance schemes, has the Taxation Office found evidence that accountants running tax avoidance schemes are requiring their clients to sign pledges of secrecy (i.e., refusing to answer questions which might be put by the Taxation Commissioner).
  2. 2 ) Are there any provisions in any Act prohibiting this activity; if so, what are the citations; if no, why not.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There is evidence that some participants in tax avoidance schemes are first required to enter a covenant of secrecy about the operation of the schemes and which specifies heavy damages for breach of that secrecy. There is no evidence of participants being bound to refuse to comply with requests for information made by the Commissioner of Taxation. On the contrary, some covenants of this type acknowledge that the secrecy covenant does not apply where it would involve a covenantor in a breach of law.
  2. While there is no specific provision against entering into a covenant of the kind described, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 makes it an offence for a person to fail to furnish information required by the Commissioner (section 223). It is also an offence to refuse to attend and give evidence, to answer questions truly and fully or to produce books or papers (section 224). A person who obstructs or hinders a taxation officer in discharging his duties also commits an offence (section 232 ).

Radioactive Isotopes (Question No. 5128)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Can the Minister say which radioactive isotopes are presently used in significant quantities in Australia (a) for medical purposes, (b) for scientific purposes and (c) in industry.
  2. What was the approximate quantity of each isotope used during 1978.
  3. In each case, what was the quantity supplied from (a) the Lucas Heights research reactor and (b) overseas sources and what was the average price of (i) imported and (ti) domestically produced isotopes.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) The information requested is contained in the following table.

Radioactive Isotopes (Question No. 5129)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. Has his Department or the Atomic Energy Commission undertaken any investigation to determine the most cost-effective means of supplying Australia ‘s future needs for radioactive isotopes for medical, scientific and industrial purposes.
  2. If so, which of the following have been examined: (a) construction of a new research reactor, (b) continued operation of the existing HIFAR research reactor, (c) the construction of one of several cyclatrons in Australia, (d) modification of the Australian National University cyclatron for isotope production or (e) the import of Australia ‘s radioactive isotope requirements.
  3. If an investigation has taken place, will the Minister make available to the House a report of its findings; if not, will the Minister institute an investigation of this nature.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The AAEC keeps under continual review the options for meeting Australia’s future needs for radioactive isotopes for medical, scientific and industrial purposes.
  2. ) All these options are considered by the AAEC.
  3. AAEC views and assessments were provided to the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council Review Committee. The Committee concluded “that there is a case for continued operation of a research reactor in Australia. Such a facility is essential for the production of short-lived radio-isotopes and maintaining an important scientific facility in the country”.

The Committee’s report tabled on 21 November 1979 recommended against the construction of a new research reactor and in favour of refurbishing and continued operation of the existing HIFAR.

The Committee noted that there is a variety of very shortlife isotopes which cannot practically be supplied from imports and that for those that can be imported there may at times be uncertainty as to the reliability of supply by import. However “there is scope for some importation if required “.

In relation to cyclotrons the Committee indicated that while it was not opposed to the construction of a cyclotron facility it considered this proposal to be “not central to the Terms of Reference” of the Review. The AAEC has concluded that there is a market for cyclotron produced radioisotopes in Australia which is currently met by imports. There may be a need for such a facility in future. However, a cyclotron is not capable of meeting the bulk of the current and projected demand for radioisotopes in Australia. Furthermore, AAEC has concluded that it would not be economic to modify the Australian National University cyclotron to supply the Australian needs for neutron deficient radioisotopes.

Uranium Enrichment (Question No. 5130)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Minister’s predecessor’s answer to my question No. 4632 (Hansard, 6 November 1979, page 2666) what export market did the report conclude could be available for the output from an Australian uranium enrichment plant by (a) 1985, (b) 1990,(c) 1995 and (d) 2000
  2. What yellowcake input would be required to produce this output and with what tails assay.
  3. What power requirement would be required for such a plant.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) Part (2) of the response to question No. 4632 advised that it was agreed by the Governments of Japan and Australia that details of the findings and conclusions would not be made available to third parties without the prior agreement of both Governments. There has been no agreement to do so at this time.

Uranium Enrichment (Question No. 5131)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. Does his Department’s 1978-79 annual report state that several large Australian companies which had previously expressed an interest in the possibilities of establishing a uranium enrichment industry in Australia had been briefed on the Government’s feasibility studies into uranium enrichment.
  2. If so, which companies have been briefed on uranium enrichment.
  3. Have these companies been briefed on the findings and conclusions of the report of the joint Japan/Australia study on uranium enrichment presented to the Government in October 1978.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The reference in the 1978-79 annual report of the Department of National Development was to the briefing of several large Australian companies on arrangements proposed by the Commonwealth to facilitate a study on the feasibility of establishing a commercial uranium enrichment industry in Australia.
  2. BHP, CSR, Peko- Wallsend and Western Mining Corporation.
  3. The briefing on the joint Japan/Australia study only covered the broad conclusion of the report as given in part ( 2 ) of the answer to your previous Question No. 4632.

Defence Force: Drug and Alcohol Abuse (Question No. 5135)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports which claim that large scale drug and alcohol abuse exists in the Defence Force.
  2. Are the figures in the reports based on official statistics.
  3. What action has he taken to remedy the abuse.
Mr Killen:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member ‘s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) My attention has been drawn to a report in a magazine which, as will be seen from my answers to Questions 5073 and 5134, uses some information about drugs first tendered publicly to the Williams Royal Commission nearly two years ago, updated in some instances from discussions with officers of my Department. The conclusions to be drawn from those statistics are much more adequately expressed in the submission to the Royal Commission, and I commend the submission, which has long been available publicly, to those who wish to approach this subject from a balanced viewpoint. See also my answers to Question 5 1 37 and to Senate Question 1 560.

Defence Force: Drug Problem (Question No. 5137)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Are figures indicating an annual increase in drug problems factual.
  2. If so, why was evidence given before Mr Justice Williams which indicated that the drug problem was negligible.
  3. Does information provided to the media contradict this evidence.
Mr Killen:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)1 assume the question refers to the Defence Force. Information and opinion available to me suggests that some fluctuations in figures relating to investigations into alleged drug usage, instances of drug offences and other criteria may be explicable in terms of:

  1. statistics being too small to provide reliable indications of trends;
  2. greater awareness of and vigilance about a potential problem.

The Defence Force is not, and could not expect to be, immune from general community problems. But I caution strongly against deriving conclusions such as that implied in the question, just as I have resisted elsewhere tendentious questions using the term ‘drug addicts’. The policy and vigorous practice of the Services is to deal with drug misuse by early detection, counselling, and disciplinary or administrtive action which, as explained in my answer to another question ( 5073 ), may entail discharge on a first detected use of a hard drug. Given the circumstances of Service discipline and supervision and the requirement to perform, it is unlikely that many, if any, of the tiny number of ‘hard’ drug cases that do occur relate to personnel whose condition could have deteriorated undetected to the point where it could be described as ‘addiction’. Drug ‘addiction’ consequently is not a criterion in Defence Force administration or records.

  1. The Royal Commission was informed in December 1977 that ‘the total number of incidents (of illegal use and misuse of drugs in the Defence Force) is small in absolute terms’ and, ‘the number of detected illegal users of “hard” drugs as a proportion of total detected users is negligible. That evidence was correct.
  2. See (2). I add that I am greatly impressed by the alertness that Service leaders display in this matter, the attention they give it, and their frankness about it: for instance, the manner in which Departmental evidence was given in public hearings of a Royal Commission nearly two years ago. Discussion of this subject would have been rewarded by more attention to the public documents of the Royal Commission and less to other publications.

Amino Acids (Question No. 5141)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to (a) an article by John W. Olney on neurotoxicity of excitatory amino acids,’ pages 95 to 1 2 1 inclusive, in Kainic Acid as a Tool in Neurobiology edited by E. G. McGeet et al., Raven Press, New York, 1 978, and (b) an article by J. W. Hambley and L. J. Rogers on retarded learning induced by intracerebral administration of amino acids in the neonatal chick in Neouroscience, pages 677 to 684 inclusive, Pergamom Press, 1979.
  2. If so, do the articles draw attention to withdrawal of approval of aspartame, a neurotoxic sweetener rich in aspartate, by the United States Food and Drug Administration.
  3. Do the articles also find glutamate, a related amino acid, to be excitotoxic in a similar way.
  4. What restrictions have been placed on aspartate and glutamate radicals and their derivatives as food additives in Australia.
  5. To what extent are these additives consumed in Australia.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. ) The article by John W. Olney mentions that the United States Food and Drug Administration has recently withdrawn approval for the use of the sweetener aspartame pending further safety evaluation. In Australia aspartame is not an approved food additive.
  3. Yes.
  4. There are no restrictions placed on aspartate and glutamate radicals and their derivatives which occur naturally in proteins and are therefore consumed in foods. However, wim regard to the use of aspartate and glutamate radicals and their derivatives as food additives in Australia the following applies: no aspartate has been approved for use as a food additive; and monosodium glutamate is an approved food additive. It may be used as a condiment but must not be added to baby food. This additive, like all other approved food additives, has been evaluated by the National Health and Medical Research Council and is considered to be safe for use.
  5. –

Aspartame is not approved as a food additive in Australia, and

Monosodium glutamate is approved as an additive in Australia only as a condiment, and consumption is therefore limited to this use.

Fire Tender Spares (Question No. 5144)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What are the ultra-large fire tender spares referred to under contract 5/ 1/367 on page 74 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 6 November 1979 (G44).
  2. How many of each type of spare is to be supplied under the contract.
  3. 3 ) Where were the spares manufactured.
  4. If the spares are being imported, is any duty being paid on them; if so, how much duty will be paid and who will pay it.
  5. What is the present level of stocks of these spares in Australia.
  6. Where are these spares located in Australia.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) (a) Rotor, Edwards P/N 1 1 150, (b) Liner, Edwards P/N 91 50, (c) Liner, Edwards P/N 10 1 50.
  2. Two.
  3. USA.
  4. No.
  5. 5 ) Nil. These are initial spares.
  6. Delivery of these spares is required to be made to Brisbane.

Department of Transport: Mr W. Harris (Question No. 5148)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 November 1 979:

Has a Mr William Harris been employed by his Department since 1974; if so, what was the classification and duties of each position he has occupied to date.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

From 1971 until he began sick leave prior to retirement on 25 August 1976 (followed by his eventual retirement at maximum age i.e. 65 years on 1 1 August 1977) Mr William Charles Harris was employed by the Department of Transport as Superintendent of Fire Services. The duties of this position are to plan, co-ordinate, direct and manage within the limits of approved policies, the activities of the Fire Services Section. In particular, the occupant of the Superintendent position specifies operational requirements for the provision of fixed and mobile fire fighting facilities; initiates and approves procedures and instructions for implementation of new and revised standards and facilities in relation to fire fighting and fire protection services and initiates and approves instructions for the conduct of staff in the provision of fire services.

Division of Fisheries and Oceanography (Question No. 5162)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1979:

Are there plans to move the CSIRO complex which contains the Division of Fisheries and Oceanography from its present premises at Cronulla, NSW: if so, will he provide full details of the proposed move and indicate the basis of the decision; if not, will he give an undertaking that the views of employees working in the establishment at Cronulla are obtained in respect of any proposed move before a decision in principle to move is taken.

Mr Thomson:
Minister for Science and the Environment · LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

There are a number of problems associated with the Organization’s continued occupancy of the Cronulla site. The CSIRO Executive has for some time been giving consideration to an alternative location. However, as at 21 January 1 980, no decision has been made.

Staff of the Division and staff association representatives were advised in November 1979 that the question of relocation was being examined in the context of a review of CSIRO ‘s work in the field of ocean sciences, and that Tasmania was one location being considered. Assurances were then given to staff association representatives and to staff of the Division of Fisheries and Oceanography that their views would receive due consideration before any decision was made which involved the transfer of staff.

Wedge-tailed Eagle (Question No. 5163)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 21 November 1979:

What measures have been taken in the past or are proposed to be taken to protect the Australian Wedge-tailed Eagle.

Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

Protection of avifauna is the responsibility of the appropriate State or Territory authority, and the Wedge-tailed Eagle is protected throughout Australia under various State and Territory legislation. However, in all areas of Western Australia, except the Shire of Kojonup, the Wedge-tailed Eagle may be destroyed by landholders on their own land, when their property is being damaged or may reasonably be expected to be damaged.

Australian Opera (Question No. 5169)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Further to question No. 4862, is it a fact that in 1977 Dame Joan Sutherland’s fee with the Australian Opera was fixed at a flat$ 1 0,000 per performance.
  2. In how many performances did Dame Joan take pan in (a) 1977, (b) 1978 and (c) 1979 to date.
  3. Is it also a fact that Dame Joan’s fees are considerably in excess of those paid to other ranking prima donnas, for example Birgit Nilsson, Kiri Te Kanawa and Leona Mitchell.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (3) There is nothing I would wish to add to my reply to question No. 4862(Hansard, 20 November 1979, pp 3257-8).
  2. (a) 14;(b)26; (c)41.

Aluminium Smelters (Question No. 5172)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Can the Minister state whether 5 aluminium smelters are currently being planned for the Hunter Valley, NSW.
  2. If so, can the Minister also state who the operators of the 2 additional smelters to those previously announced (Alcan, Alumax, Pechiney) will be.
  3. What feasibility studies are being carried out regarding the establishment of a coal liquefaction plant in the Hunter Valley.
  4. Has the Water Division of his Department been engaged either unilaterally or jointly with the New South Wales Government in feasibility studies for 4 new dams in the Hunter Valley to provide cooling for several new thermal power stations, which in turn will provide increased electricity capacity for the proposed aluminium smelters; if so, (a) what stage have the feasibility studies reached and (b) if completed, what were the recommendations of those studies.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) Proposals for new smelters in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales have been announced by Alumax (Aust.) and Aluminium Pechiney (Aust.) and Alcan (Aust.) has announced proposals to expand its smelter at Kurri Kurri.
  2. The Commonwealth and the Governments of New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria are participating in the joint Australia/Federal Republic of Germany coal to oil feasibility study. This study will report, inter alia, on the feasibility of establishing a commercial coal liquefaction plant in the Hunter Valley.
  3. No.

Kakadu National Park (Question No. 5173)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Further to his predecessor’s answer to part (2 ) of question No. 50 1 1 (Hansard, 20 November 1 979, pages 3260- 1 ), what is the (a) name and (b) designation and salary, of the officer of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service who is currently working full-time in Kakadu National Park on the recording and documentation of art sites.
  2. ) Is that officer an Aboriginal person.
  3. If not, (a) what is the nature and frequency of any contact the officer has with Aboriginal traditional owners and (b) are any Aboriginals employed as consultants in the recording and documentation of an sites.
  4. If Aboriginal consultants are employed, what are their names, designations and salaries.
  5. Has the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service carried out any survey to establish whether any Aboriginals resident within the Kakadu National Park and nearby areas could be employed in the protection of Aboriginal an sites in the areas; if so, how many Aboriginals does the Service estimate could be employed in this project and what is the estimated cost of the project.
  6. If no survey has been carried out, why not.
Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The officer working on the conservation of rock art sites is Mr D. Gillespie- Position No. 34, Clerk, Class 5 ($ 1 3,609- 1 4,7 1 4), Project Officer (Scientific Services ).
  2. That officer is not an Aboriginal.
  3. The officer receives advice from traditional owners of the Kakadu National Park region. There are three Aboriginals employed in the Kakadu National Park by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. These provide advice on the recording and documentation of an sites as well as a wide range of cultural matters. Their contribution encompasses advice on priorities of rock an sites, interpretation, methods of conservation and the location of sacred Sites. Consultation on rock art sites within the Kakadu National Park occurs on a continuous basis with traditional owners.
  4. The three Aboriginal employees of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service who are traditional owners and are consulted are:

Mr T. Gangali;Position No. 50, Clerk, Class 5 ($ 1 3,609- 1 4,7 1 4), Cultural Adviser

Mr M. Alderson; Position No. 49, Clerk, Class 5 ($ 1 3,609- 14,7 14), Cultural Adviser

Mr B. Neiiji Position No. 59, Clerical Assistant, Grade 4, ($9,865- 10,271)

  1. No formal survey has been carried out. Through constant contact with Aboriginals resident in the Park, and the Northern Land Council, it is known which Aboriginals living in or adjacent to the Park or having traditional ties in the area could be employed in the Park. Employment potential is not restricted to the protection of Aboriginal art sites. The possibility of contracting groups of Aboriginals to protect specific sites is under consideration subject to the necessary approvals. It appears that four Aboriginals could be employed full time with additional Aboriginals involved on a contractural basis. It is not possible to give a realistic estimate of the overall costs since it is a long term project and the position is in a state of flux.
  2. See (5) above.

Migrant Programs and Services (Question No. 5179)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

What sums were paid by the Commonwealth in the Electoral Divisions of ( 1 ) the Northern Territory, (2) Canberra, (3) Kalgoorlie, (4) Penh, (5) Swan, (6) Stun, (7) Kingston, (8) Ballarat, (9) Bendigo, ( 10) Deakin, (II) McMillan, ( 12 ) Isaacs, (13) Henty, ( 14) Holt, (15) La Trobe, ( 16) Hotham, (17) Bass, (18) Franklin, (19) Braddon, (20) Wilmot, (21) Denison, (22) Wide Bay, (23) Herbert, (24) Fadden, (25) Dawson, (26) Lilley, (27) Bowman, (28) Brisbane, (29) Leichhardt, (30) Calare, (31) Eden Monaro, (32) Cook, (33) Lowe, (34) Barton, (35) Macquarie, (36) St George, (37) Phillip and (38) Macarthur for migrant programs and services since their inception.

Mr Macphee:
LP

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

The information requested by the honourable member is not available from the financial records held by my Department.

Underground Electricity Supply Cables (Question No. 5180)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

Will he have the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority place all domestic electricity supply cables underground so as (a) to enhance the beauty of Canberra (b) to set a good example to the States and (c) most importantly, to give a fillip to employment in the ACT.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by my Department that:

Whilst the matter of undergrounding electric supply mains has been a subject of frequent consultation between the Authority and the National Capital Development Commission, and whilst the Authority has provided underground service to some thousands of domestic consumers in the Territory, the normal method of distribution is based on the use of ‘back spine’ low voltage overhead mains.

This system was introduced to Canberra by Walter Burley Griffin, the designer of the Capital, and with subsequent refinement in the 1960’s, provides a method of distribution which is aesthetically acceptable and of much lower cost than an all underground scheme.

Whilst the existing distribution system could be placed underground, it would be at great cost in both financial and physical resources.

It is estimated that:

1 ) there are some 60,000 domestic customers in the ACT currently served from overhead low voltage mains,

the cost of replacing this existing main with an underground system in the streets together with undergrounding of associated 11,000 volt equipment and replacement of pole mounted transformers would be not less than $ 100m.

This estimate takes account of the high degree of difficulty experienced in the provision of new underground services in established streets and domestic gardens, the high reinstatement costs and the fact that underground service would originate in most cases from the street frontage whereas existing services are provided from rearoflot overhead mains.

This estimate which envisages the expenditure of some $ 1 ,600 on the conversion of each existing customer service may be compared with a figure of $2,000 per customer derived for the same purpose by another major Australian electric supply utility.

Such a programme has been contemplated by other Australian electric supply utilities however, it has never been attempted because of the heavy demand i’ would impose on the financial and physical resources of the Community.

The provision of underground supply to new residential divisions is much more easily attainable and is offered to developers provided that the additional costs involved are met by the developer.

Whilst the suggestion is capable of achievement, it would only be possible by the diversion of very significant resources from other areas of the economy and should not, in the view of the Authority, be funded by the electricity consumers of Canberra.

Trade and Resources: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5181)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1 975.
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)1 cannot recall any such occurrence.

Industry and Commerce: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5182)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which-

    1. local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1975.

  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) No local Federal Government Member, local Federal Opposition Member, Government Senator or Opposition Senator has officially represented the Minister for Industry and Commerce at official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding nor has any Government cheque been handed over.

Industrial Relations: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5184)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1975.
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) With respect to pans (a), (b), (c) and (d) I have not asked another member of Parliament to represent me as Minister for Industrial Relations at official openings.
  2. There have been no occasions where Government cheques were handed over.

Primary Industry: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5186)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government Funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1975.
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Nixon:
Minister for Primary Industry · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) None, (b) None, (c) None, (d) None.
  2. Not applicable.

Finance: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5191)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since Decern ber 1 975 .
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Minister for Finance has not been so represented on any such occasion.
  2. ) See answer to ( I ).

Employment and Youth Affairs: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5192)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1975.
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

Since November 1978, when I became Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs:

I ) The only official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding were two official openings associated with the National Aboriginal Employment Development Committee. These were at Port Augusta, South Australia and Dubbo, New South Wales. As you may be aware I officially opened the Port Augusta campaign in October last year. At the opening of the campaign in Dubbo no Government or Opposition members represented me.

On no occasions were Government cheques handed over.

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5195)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1 975.
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Details of individual projects may be found in news releases issued by the Minister and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs since December 1 975.

The information sought by the Honourable Member is not available in the form sought. It is known that Government cheques were ‘handed over’ on the following occasions during 1979: 21.7.79-$4,000 to the Polish Association in N.S.W. Maitland Branch; 1 9.2.79- $2,464 to Latin-American Association, Perth, by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr MacKellar; 30.9.79-$2,000 to Capuchin Franciscan Friars; 6.12.79-$400 presented to Languages Galore-All Languages Book Fair.

Veterans’ Affairs: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5196)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1 975.
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) All projects officially opened in the Depanment of Veterans’ Affairs since December 1975 have been opened by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs of the day except for the Emergency Accident Centre at Repatriation General Hospital Concord, N.S.W., which was opened, on 15 October 1976, by the Secretary of the Department Sir Richard Kingsland on behalf of the then Minister.
  2. None.

Administrative Services: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5197)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator, or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1975.
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

The information sought is not readily available from the Department’s records and I am not prepared at this time to direct staff resources away from other important work to assemble this information.

However, if the honourable member has a particular interest in any specific project, I would be pleased to try and provide a response.

National Development and Energy: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5198)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 22 November 1 979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1975.
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Dubbo Modular Factories, for which financial assistance was provided under the Commonwealth Regional Development Program, were officially opened by the local Member of Parliament, the Hon. R. J. D. Hunt, M.P. on 8 August 1979. There have been no other occasions on which either local Members or Senators have represented me or my predecessors in areas of responsibility now encompassed by the National Development and Energy portfolio.
  2. None.

Science and the Environment: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5199)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which:

    1. local Federal Government Member,
    2. b ) local Federal Opposition Member,
    3. Government Senator or
    4. Opposition Senator officially represented the Minister since December 1975.

  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.

Mr Thomson:
NCP/NP

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

(1)-

  1. On 21 October 1977, Mr P. S. Fisher, Member for Mallee represented the Minister for Science and the Environment at the Official Opening of the CSIRO Specific Pathogen Free Poultry Laboratory at Maribyrnong, Victoria.
  2. Nil.
  3. Nil.

  4. Nil.

    1. There were no occasions when Government cheques were handed over.

Special Trade Representations: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5203)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Special Trade Representations, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding, which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented the Minister since December 1975.
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) As the Department of the Special Trade Representative has not been responsible for any projects which received Federal Government funding, since its establishment in 1977, no member of Federal Parliament has officially represented the Minister for Special Trade Representations at an official opening.
  2. Not applicable.

Capital Territory: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5205)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1 975.
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

The information sought is not readily available from the Department’s records and I am not prepared at this time to direct staff resources away from other important work to assemble this information.

However, if the honourable member has a particular interest in any specific project I would be pleased to try and provide a response.

HIFAR Nuclear Research Reactor (Question No. 5208)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) In relation to the shutdown of the HIFAR nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights, New South Wales, will the Minister identify, quantify and locate the materials which have allegedly leaked indicating the extent of radioactivity involved in any releases.
  2. What measures have to be taken before HIFAR becomes fully operational and what is the anticipated costs of the repairs.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) There were no releases of radioactivity associated with the inspection of the expansion joints during the current HIFAR shutdown. 1.250 litres of heavy water found inside the secondary containment of the expansion joints is now incorporated in the AAEC ‘s heavy water inventory.
  2. In addition to the routine work associated with the current shutdown of HIFAR, the bellows within the expansion joints are being replaced. The estimated cost of the work is $10,000.

Radioisotopes and Radiopharmaceuticals (Question No. 5209)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 22 November 1 979:

Has the Government determined the exact alternative sources of radioisotopes and radiopharmaceuticals normally supplied by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission; if so, what are they.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Yes. Radioisotopes and the radiopharmaceuticals normally supplied by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission are, where practical, being purchased in bulk from overseas suppliers and being processed and dispensed at Lucas Heights during shutdown of HIFAR. The suppliers are Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (Canada), and The Radiochemical Centre, Amersham ( U.K. ).

Neutron Flow Analysis (Question No. 5210)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 22 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What research projects involving neutron flow analysis is undertaken by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.
  2. To what extent is the use of a nuclear research reactor required for these research projects.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The phrase ‘neutron flow analysis’ is not one in general usage but is taken to mean ‘the analysis of fluid flow using neutrons’. The project undertaken by the AAEC involves the measurement of twophase flow in fluids inside thickwalled pipes.
  2. A nuclear reactor is not required for this research project.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: Houses Owned and Leased (Question No. 5214)

Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. How many houses are (a) owned and (b) leased by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.
  2. What is the location of each house.
  3. In respect of each house, showing its location, what is the name of and position occupied by the Tribunal employee living in it as at 22 November 1979.
Mr Staley:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal does not (a) own, or ( b ) lease any houses.
  2. and (3) See answer to ( 1 ) above.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: Houses Owned or Leased (Question No. 5219)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. What is the rental charged to each current tenant of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal for each house owned or rented by the Tribunal.
  2. What is the rental asked by the Tribunal for each house it owns or rents which is not currently tenanted.
  3. What was the rental charged or asked by the Tribunal for each house it owns or leases as at 30 June (a) 1976, (b) 1977, (c) 1978 and(d) 1979.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal does not own or lease any houses.
  2. and (3) See answer to ( 1 ) above.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: Houses Owned or Leased (Question No. 5226)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the location and valuation (by official State or Territorial valuers) of each house owned by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.
  2. What is the rental paid by the Tribunal for each house it leases.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal does not own or lease any houses.
  2. 2 ) See answer to ( 1 ) above.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: Rental Housing (Question No. 5232)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1 979:

Do tenants of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in each location pay rent only or also pay for (a) electricity, (b) gas, (c), telephone and (d) rates.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answer to Question No. 5214.

Norfolk Island: Petroleum Products (Question No. 5243)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1 979:

  1. What companies in (a) Australia and (b) any other place (by name) sell (i) petrol and (ii) any other petroleum products (by name) to companies or individuals on Norfolk Island.
  2. Which individuals and companies market petrol and other petroleum products on Norfolk Island.
  3. What is the volume of each product from each source marketed on the Island by each company or individual, respectively.
  4. What is the landed cost of petrol and each petroleum product sold on the Island, from each source respectively.
  5. What is the retail price of petrol and each petroleum product sold on Norfolk island by each company or individual respectively.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am advised by the Administrator of Norfolk Island that for the year ending 30 June 1 979:

1 ) Mobil Oil Australia Ltd (exporting from Australia, Fiji and Noumea) and Castro Australia Pty Ltd (exporting from Australia) were the only companies which provided Norfolk Island with petroleum products in discernible quantities. There is a wide variety of petroleum products sold on Norfolk Island. These include avgas, lube oil, grease, heating oil, dry cleaning fluid, kerosene, petropine, wood preserving oil, mobilarma, meth mix, degreasing, mobilite, delvac 1 330, duo 20W/30, mobilfluid 425, heavy 40 oil, outboard 50, super 20W/50, JDT 303, delvac 1 130, duo 20W/50, HBF 46, mobiltemp, aero oil, mogas, ado and jet A 1.

The following agencies market petrol and/or other petroleum products on Norfolk Island-

Martin ‘s Agencies Ltd

Mount Pitt Enterprises Ltd

Cec’s Rent-a-Car and Scooters (Norfolk Island) Ltd

Central Service Station

Cascade Motors Ltd

Duncombe Bay Garage

Holloway’s Garage (3), (4) and (5) Much of this information is either not readily available or confidential. Considerable research would be required to compile the available information and I do not consider that this would be justified. The value of total imports of petroleum products into Norfolk Island, by type and country of origin, is shown for 1978-79 in Appendix VIII of the Norfolk Island Annual Report for that year.

Air Fares to Norfolk Island (Question No.5244)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

Has his attention been drawn to my question placed on notice to the Minister for Transport on 22 November 1979 relating to air fares to Norfolk Island; if so, will he consult with the Minister for Transport in an endeavour to protect the economy and the tourist industry of Norfolk Island.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

Yes. On 22 November 1979 the Minister for Transport and I jointly announced that the Government had approved the introduction of jet services between Sydney and Norfolk Island and agreed, in principle, to the upgrading of the Norfolk Island Airport as soon as possible. This upgrading and the operation of jets will be of major benefit to the continued viability of the economy and the tourist industry of Norfolk Island.

Land Zoning in Canberra (Question No. 5246)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What areas of Canberra, specifically, are currently zoned by the National Capital Development Commission or his Department for redevelopment from their existing land usage.
  2. For each area, what is the existing zoning and the proposed zoning.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by the National Capital Development Commission as follows:

1 ) and (2) Land in the Australian Capital Territory is not zoned in the sense that land is zoned in Australian States. Generally, land uses for various areas are defined in policy plans prepared by the National Capital Development Commission; the land use of each individual block is controlled by the purpose clause in the lease.

Two areas have been designated for redevelopment in Canberra. These are:

Section 24, Turner. In this section blocks 5-13 inclusive were originally designated ‘residential purposes only’. Under Commission policy the existing houses on these blocks may be used for professional suites or for office purposes, subject to the variation of the lease by the Supreme Court of the ACT; and

That part of land in Kingston and Griffith which is bounded by Canberra Avenue, Telopea Park, Wentworth Avenue and Burke Crescent designated for residential purposes. Blocks in this area may be redeveloped to allow for the construction of residential flats and medium density dwellings provided that any such redevelopment schemes are in accordance with the guidelines of the Commission and a new lease is issued to permit the redevelopment.

Guidelines on Official Conduct of Public Servants (Question No.5250)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did he state that he regards the Guidelines on official conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants published by the Public Service Board as persuasive only in character.
  2. In view of paragraph 3.25 of the publication is he satisfied that a former senior public servant who until 12 April 1979 was Deputy Chief of Army Materiel has complied with the spirit of the Guidelines.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Yes,
  2. I assume that the officer referred to is Brigadier D. J. McMillen, not a public servant but a member of the Regular Army until 8 July 1979. Notwithstanding this I have no cause to believe that Brigadier McMillen ‘s conduct was not within the spirit of the guidelines on official conduct of public servants. I would point out that the guidelines were issued subsequent to Brigadier McMillen ‘s resignation.

Merchant Seamen Prisoners of War (Question No. 5256)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1) It is a fact that 178 Australian merchant seamen were prisoners of war during World War II and that 1 14 of them returned home.
  2. It is also a fact that approximately 60 of these men are still alive.
  3. Did these men serve in war zones during the war under circumstances of grave danger and high casualty rates.
  4. Are these men not regarded as veterans because they are not defined in the Repatriation Act as members of the armed forces.
  5. Can he say whether the Canadian Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act 1976 eliminates the distinction between prisoners of war who were merchant seamen and those who were members of the armed forces.
  6. What would be the estimated annual cost for granting surviving Australian merchant seamen POW’s full repatriation benefits.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Records of Australian merchant mariners who were prisoners of War are not maintained by the Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs.
  2. ) Quite probably, but not known.
  3. Merchant mariners are not ‘members of the forces ‘ for the purposes of the Repatriation Act 1920 and are not eligible to receive pensions and benefits under that Act. Separate provision is made for wartime merchant mariners in the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940.
  4. The Canadian Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act 1976 provides for compensation for the following groups: those who served in the naval, army or air forces of Canada or Newfoundland; those who served in other British Commonwealth or allied forces and who were domiciled in Canada or Newfoundland at the time of enlistment; those who were civilian prisoners of war (includes Canadian Merchant Seamen).
  5. The estimated annual cost of granting full medical treatment benefits to 60 people would be about $50,000.

Health: Media Advertisements (Question No. 5263)

Mr Kerin:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has he or his Department placed advertisements in the media rebutting statements made by State Health Ministers, organisations or individuals; if so, on what occasions, with which media and what was the cost.
  2. ) Was the money spent from a budgetary, special or permanent appropriation; if so, from which appropriation.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes. A newspaper advertisement was placed in a number of New South Wales newspapers to rebut incorrect statements made by the New South Wales Minister for Health concerning rationalisation of hospital services in that State. The advertisement, in a 36 cm x 7 columns size, was first placed in four Sydney metropolitan newspapers (the Sydney Morning Herald, the Daily Telegraph, the Australian and the Daily Mirror) on 28 September 1979. It was subsequently placed, in a reduced 18 cm x 7 columns size, in all New South Wales provincial newspapers and those ethniclanguage newspapers published in Italian, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Serbian, Croatian, Turkish and Arabic which circulate in New South Wales. These placements were either on 22 October 1 979 or in the week commencing on that date. The total cost of placement and translation of all the above advertisements was $39, 1 20. 1 6
  2. The funds used are from those approved by the Minister for Finance from the Minister’s Advance pending additional estimates (Appropriation Bill No. 3) for Division 325.2. 1 1 Advertising for the purpose of informing the community of health insurance changes from 1 September 1979 and related matters.

Community Hospitals (Question No. 5265)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the Government is reviewing the section 34 arrangements of the Health Insurance Act relating to the provision of hospital beds in private and community hospitals for public patients.
  2. If so, for how long has this review been taking place and when does he anticipate that a decision will be made.
  3. Is it also a fact that a small local community hospital is not only financially advantageous when compared with a centralised public hospital, but also benefits both patients and doctors because of the accessibility of treatment.
  4. Has his attention been drawn to a submission from the Enfield, Prospect and Walkerville Community Development Board to him and his Department which has shown a great need for the provision of extra section 34 beds in the northern areas of Adelaide.
  5. 5 ) If so, what is his response to this submission.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Commencing in 1978, the review has been protracted because of the need for continuing discussions with the previous South Australian Government (South Australia is the only State in which section 34 approvals have been given). During November 1979, officers of my Department had further discussions with representatives of the South Australian Health Commission on this matter and I shall be taking the matter up with the new South Australian Minister of Health
  3. I do not believe that meaningful comparisons can be drawn between, say, a metropolitan teaching hospital and a small community hospital. However, I believe that community hospitals fulfil a valuable role in the overall provision of health services, with particular benefits flowing from their size and location.
  4. I have read the submission referred to, without necessarily drawing the same conclusion as the honourable member.
  5. The Enfield Community Council for Social Development has been advised that its submission would be considered in the review process, and that in the meantime, it was proposed to not approve any additional section 34 accommodation.

Deaths of Australian Newsmen in East Timor (Question No. 3416)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1 979:

Can he say whether, at the time the Australian newsmen were killed in East Timor, there was a ‘D’ Notice in operation which had the effect of preventing the publication of information received by signals relating to the killing.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answers provided by the Prime Minister to his two previous questions on notice, namely No. 1580 (Hansard, 25 October 1978, page 2324) and No. 2690 (Hansard, 24 November 1978, pages 3491-92).

Exploration for Oil and Gas (Question No. 3589)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which representatives of Government and industry were consulted by the National Energy Advisory Committee during the preparation of its Report on Exploration for Oil and Gas in Australia.
  2. Will the submissions and evidence provided by these representatives be made public.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following reply:

In the course of drafting their Report on Oil and Gas Exploration in Australia, members of the National Advisory Committee (NEAC) held informal discussions with a number of organisations. The organisations are as follows:

BHP Co. Ltd.

Shell Company of Australia Ltd

British Petroleum Company of Australia Ltd

Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd

Amoco Australia Pty Ltd

Ampul Petroleum Ltd

Australian Institute of Petroleum

Mobil Oil Australia Ltd

Golden Fleece Petroleum

Total Australia Ltd

Esso Australia Ltd

Australian Gas Light Co. Ltd

The Energy Advisory Council of Western Australia

The State Energy Commission of Western Australia

West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd

Woodside Petroleum Ltd

South Australian Gas Company

Electricity Trust of South Australia

South Australian Mines Department

Pipeline Authority of South Australia

Santos Ltd

Delhi International Oil Corporation

The Pipeline Authority

Department of National Resources (as it then was).

The National Energy Advisory Committee does not call for submissions but seeks information from other organisations as necessary. In general, consultation with the above organisations was not in the manner of a formal presentation or submission, but of informal discussions. Individual NEAC members also sought advice from other organisations as they believed appropriate. (2)See(l)above.

Crude Oil Consumption (Question No. 3820)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 3 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the International Energy Agency requested each of its members to cut crude oil consumption by 5 per cent.
  2. For each member country, what is the basic figure upon which the5 percent cut will be determined.
  3. For what period is the cut in consumption proposed to apply.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) See the answer to Question No. 503 1.

Energy Consumption (Question No. 3822)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 3 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Can the Minister say which countries have established governmentsupported agencies to advise and assist industry and business on energy use matters, particularly energy conservation methods, the potential for fuel substitution and renewable energy source use and the costs and benefits of energy use alternatives.
  2. ) If so, when was each agency established.
  3. What was the initial, and is the current, government support for each agency.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Several countries have established government supported agencies to advise and assist industry and business on energy use matters particularly energy conservation methods, the potential for fuel substitution and use of renewable energy sources and the associated costs and benefits. The following countries have established agencies or services for the purpose of covering some or all of the issues mentioned Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.
  2. ) Most of the agencies and services in the countries listed in the above table have been in existence since the mid 1970s. Their functions and often their names have changed over time and it is not possible to provide the dates on which each agency’s operations were commenced.
  3. Comprehensive information is not available on the level of government funding.

Government Tenders (Question No. 3915)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 9 May 1979:

When a Government Department or Authority receives competitive tenders for the supply of a particular commodity, does any official in that Department or Authority have any power, either with or without ministerial direction, to threaten the tenderers with loss of that contract, either in whole or in part, unless the tenderer or tenderers reduce their tender price.

Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I am able to answer only as to the factual situation in my own Department. In relation to the AttorneyGeneral ‘s Department the answer to the honourable member’s question is no’.

Fuel Consumption Targets (Question No. 4076)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 30 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Can the Minister say which countries have established national crude oil or petroleum products consumption targets since 1973.
  2. If so, what targets have been established in each case, either in relation to existing levels of consumption or as absolute volumes of fuel.
  3. Has the Government established any targets for Australia: if so, what targets have been established, if not, why has the Government failed to set targets.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: ( I ), (2 ) and ( 3 ) See the answer to Question No. 503 1 .

Petroleum Imports (Question No. 4077)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 30 May 1979:

  1. When were imports of (a) refinery feedstock and (b) petroleum products made into Australia since January 1 978.
  2. In each case, what quantities of feedstock or product were involved, and to which port and refinery was the commodity delivered.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. See Imports of Petroleum Products into Australia 1977-78 and 1978-79 published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
  2. Information on individual cargoes is regarded as confidential.

Fuel Consumption (Question No. 4078)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 30 May:

What is the average daily consumption of (a) aviation gasoline, (b) motor spirit, (c) aviation turbine fuel, (d) lighting kerosene, (e) heating oil, (f) power kerosene, (g) automotive distillate, (h) industrial diesel fuel, (j) furnace fuel oil and (k) liquefied petroleum gas for each month of 1978 for (i) Australia and (ii) each State and Territory.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Data on daily consumption levels are not available in the detail sought. However, information on the gross consumption of petrol products on an annual basis, both historically and forecast, is given in Oil and Australia 1 979, a publication of the Australian Institute of Petroleum. Consumption of individual products for the financial year 1977-78 has been published by the Department of National Development and Energy in its publication Petroleum Statistics. Figures for calendar year 1978 and financial year 1978-79 compiled by the Department will be published shortly.

Citizen Band Radio (Question No. 4369)

Mr Hodges:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact there is a backlog of complaints regarding the use of Citizen Band radio; if so, what steps have been taken to remedy the situation.
  2. How successful are the existing arrangements of policing regulations regarding the operation of Citizen Band radio.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There is a backlog of complaints regarding the use of Citizen Band radio. The majority of these complaints concern interference to other services and domestic electronic appliances.

The investigation of interference complaints is a specialised technical activity and, consequently, officers engaged in these duties are required to possess the relevant technical background. Some difficulty has been experienced in recruiting suitably qualified officers to these positions. Furthermore, when such officers become available, it is some time before the benefit of staff increases is felt due to the additional specialised training required for the performance of these duties. Recruitment efforts are now being stepped up however, and it is hoped that additional suitably qualified staff will be available shortly.

In addition to this special recruitment activity a joint review involving officers of my Depanment and the Public Service Board has recently been conducted into procedures and staffing aspects of the Licensing Policy and Operations Branch of my Department. The recommendations of this review are being considered and are being implemented where appropriate. Some of the recommendations are quite farreaching and should result in significant long term improvement in the radio licensing and regulatory aspects of my Department.

In the meantime, I would assure you that the available staff are doing everything within their capacity to minimise delays in the investigations of complaints regarding the use of Citizens Band Radio.

  1. When the Citizens Band Radio Service was introduced in July 1977 it placed the then existing arrangements for policing the operation of radio equipment in Australia under strain and a number of deficiencies were noted.

Since that time additional staff have been added and procedures refined to regulate the Citizens Band Radio Service in a manner best suited to the nature of the service and its users.

As the service is utilized by a very large number of mainly inexperienced operators it is believed that its proper regulation will best be achieved by encouraging operators to practice self regulatory measures combined with the oversighting role of Radio Inspectors. It will be appreciated that responsible operating practices are essential in order for the service to efficiently share the spectrum with all other radiocommunication users. I am confident that responsible groups within the service such as CREST and the NCRA certainly foster this sense of responsibility and actively encourage operators to practice such self disciplinary measures.

My Department, of course, needs to support these organisations in this endeavour with investigations and, if necessary, prosecutions in extreme cases. This action is currently being undertaken.

Citizen Band Radio (Question No. 4370)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1979:

Is it a fact that Citizens Band radio licensing fees totalling an alleged $14 million have remained uncollected by his Department; if so, are any arrangements in hand to remedy this situation and when is the backlog expected to be cleared.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

It is true that a number of persons in Australia have failed to license or renew their licence for radio equipment as required by the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905-1973. It is not possible to accurately determine the number of such unlicensed sets being used in contravention of the Act and, therefore, not possible to say whether the figure of $14 million is correct but, as such a figure represents about half a million licences, I am inclined to doubt it. It is important to note that it is not at present illegal just to own radio transmitting and receiving equipment covered by the Act but only to establish, erect, maintain or use it. There are now, I am sure, many CB sets bought during the period when CB was a great novelty which are no longer in use.

The organisation, staffing and procedures of the Licensing Policy and Operations Branch of my Department which processes licences for CB and other radio equipment has been the subject of a recently completed joint review by my Department and the Public Service Board. Action is now in hand to implement the findings of the review as a matter of priority and this should assist to remedy the situation referred to by the honourable member.

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Programs and Policies (Question No. 4443)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. For what programs and policies concerning immigrants has his Department been responsible in each year from 1970 to date.
  2. What was the expenditure on each program and policy. (l)and(2)-
  3. What proportion of his Department’s administrative expenses are estimated to cover the programs and policies.
  4. On what dates did the transfer of responsibility for programs and policies referred to in pan ( 1 ) to or from his Department take effect.
  5. To which or from which Departments were these transfers of responsibilities made.
  6. Why were these transfers made.
  7. With what other Federal or State Government Departments or authorities does his Department share responsibility for the programs and policies referred to in pan

(1).

Mr Macphee:
LP

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

The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was established on 22 December 1975. Information relating to expenditures before this date is not readily available in a suitable form.

Some programs have undergone substantial change in concept, size and aims since they were originally initiated.

Information relating to some major programs administered by my Department may be obtained through reference to the statements to the House of 24 May 1977 on ‘Refugee Policy and Mechanisms’ and 7 June 1978 on ‘Immigration Policies and Australia’s Population’ and the accompanying papers on ‘Immigration Categories and Procedures’.

With regard to postarrival services, I would refer the Honourable Member to the Prime Minister’s statement of 27 May 1978 when tabling the Galbally Report, in conjunction with the statement of 27 September 1979 on the implementation of the Galbally Report by my predecessor, the Honourable Michael MacKellar.

Although the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs was established on 22 December 1975, many of the programs now operated by my Department did not in fact become the responsibility of the new Department until some considerable time after that date. The following is the information sought by the Honourable Member from the date the various programs were passed to my Department.

S-None.

  1. Information regarding the proportion of administrative expenses on programs and policies administered by the Department, apart from that given, is not available.
  2. and (5) Responsibility for programs and policies referred to above in reply to questions (1) and (2), was assumed on the following dates; where applicable the Department from which the transfer of responsibility was made is also given:

A to C- Passed from the Department of Labor and Immigration on 22 December 1975-1975-76 figure is for the full financial year.

D- Passed from Department of Education on 20 December 1977.

E- New program commenced March 1978.

F to N- Passed from Department of Social Security on 20 December 1977.

O- New program commenced with 1978-79 Budget.

P- Passed from the Department of Social Security on 20 December 1977.

Q- Commenced in 1977 on an experimental basis.

R- New program commenced July 1 978.

S to U- New programs which have commenced this financial year.

  1. The Government created the Depanment of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to improve the co-ordination and integration of programs and policies relating to the Commonwealth’s immigration and ethnic affairs responsibilities. It was also intended to provide a focus for attention to the special post-arrival needs of migrants.
  2. Responsibility for programs and policies outlined in reply to questions (1) and (2) shared with other Federal and /or State authorities is itemised below:

A to C-None.

D-E- All State and Territory Departments of Education.

F to N-None

O- Generally, none; however some of the accommodation projects under this item are the result of joint funding arrangements between my Department and Education Departments in specific states.

P- Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration.

Q-None.

R-None.

T- None; my Department, however, has a consultancy responsibility with the Department of Social Security and State Social Welfare Departments.

U-None.

Uranium Industry (Question No. 4449)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 23 August 1979:

  1. What are the (a) maximum and (b) minimum estimates of (i) past and (ii) projected proportion of the costs of administration of his Department devoted to the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and/or the products, services and activities derived from its existence.
  2. What are the (a) maximum and (b) minimum estimates of (i) past and (ii) projected revenues to Australian Governments from (A) mining, (B) transporting, (C) selling, (D) processing and (E) administering the uranium industry.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) A number of positions have been allocated in the Department of National Development and Energy specifically for activities devoted to some aspect of the marketing, use, supervision, control and assessment of Australia’s uranium ore and/or products, services and activities derived from its existence. It is estimated that in 1978/79 the salaries and other administrative expenses would represent of the order of 0.5 per cent of the costs of administration of the Department.

Activities related to uranium matters have been undertaken by a number of officers of my Department from time to time as part of their normal duties. It is not practicable to provide a satisfactory estimate of the costs of these activities.

It is estimated that in 1979/80 the costs described above will represent of the order of 1 per cent of the costs of administration of my Department.

  1. The Department of National Development and Energy does not receive revenues on behalf of the Australian Government from (A) mining, (B) transporting, (C) selling, (D) processing, and (E) administering the uranium industry.

Consultative Committee on Energy Conservation (Question No. 4631)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Consultative Committee, established by the Australian Minerals and Energy Council at its meeting on 10 March 1978, reported to the Council on energy conservation?
  2. If so, what recommendations did the committee make regarding training programs, advisory services, energy conservation by Government, energy conservation in transport, pricing and tax policies and energy conservation in buildings?
  3. Which of these recommendations were accepted by the Council and what action has followed in each case?
  4. What discussions have been undertaken with other Ministers and Government Departments with a view to implementing these recommendations and what action has followed in each case?
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Advice from officials to AMEC is given to the Council on a confidential basis.
  3. Council, following its consideration of the advice received from officials, endorsed a program covering: an initial consultancy study for research and planning of a national energy publicity campaign; energy conservation measures which could be readily implemented by Governments in their own organisations and establishments; energy conservation in transport, buildings and housing.
  4. See answer to (2).

Overseas Students (Question No. 4711)

Dr Blewett:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas students have taken up places in Australian tertiary institutions in the last 1 0 years.
  2. How many of these students have (a) applied for and (b) been granted permanent resident status during the same years.
  3. How many of these students have been (a) private students and (b) financially supported by their governments or by assistance schemes or scholarships during the same period.
  4. What schemes is the Australian Government currently involved in which offer assistance to overseas students studying in Australia.
  5. Does this assistance include the cost of travel between the student’s country and Australia.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. The numbers of places in Australian tertiary institutions, occupied by overseas students, in the last 10 years were:

In addition, under the Australian European Awards Program, administered by the Commonwealth Department of Education, 87 post graduate students have been admitted from European countries since the Program’s inception in 1974.

  1. Statistics are not available to show how many of the student applicants seeking and obtaining resident status attended tertiary institutions.

However, the total numbers of overseas students and trainees who obtained resident status in the last ten years are set out in the following table:

  1. Separate statistics are not maintained for the grant of resident status to students who were (a) private students or (b) financially supported by their Governments or by assistance schemes or scholarships. The latter group, however, would be a very small proportion of the total numbers given in (2) above.

  2. Current schemes involving Australian Government financial assistance to overseas students to study in Australia are:

    1. Colombo Plan
    2. Special Commonwealth African Assistance Plan
    3. South Pacific Aid Program
    4. Australian International Awards Scheme
    5. Australia- Papua New Guinea Education and Training Scheme
    6. Australian-Asian Universities Co-operation Scheme
    7. Commonwealth Co-operation in Education Scheme
    8. Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan
    9. Asian-Australian Economic Co-operation Programme
    10. SEA Ministers of Education Organisation
    11. Australian European Awards Program
  3. Yes.

Commonwealth Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4718)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. 1 ) What specific action has the Commonwealth Government taken to reduce the incidence of vehicle-caused pollution by Commowealth owned vehicles operating in the Sydney area.
  2. Are any modifications or extra procedures necessary for vehicles operating in the area to meet pollution controls.
  3. How many Sydney-based Commonwealth vehicles operate on gas.
  4. How many Commonwealth (a) passenger and (b) transport vehicles operating in the Sydney area are (i) diesel, (ii) gas and (iii) petrol powered.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) All motor vehicles manufactured in, or imported into Australia, are required by State and Territory registration authorities to comply with the appropriate Australian Design Rules (ADR’s) as endorsed by the Australian Transport Advisory Council. A number of ADR’s relate to the control of motor vehicle pollution, and are applied on a national basis to private, State Government and Commonwealth Government vehicles.
  2. No modifications or extra procedures are necessary, for vehicles to comply with the requirements of the New South Wales Clean Air Act 1 96 1 , No. 69.
  3. No Sydney-based Commonwealth vehicles operate on gas at present, but I am advised by the Minister for Administrative Services that it is planned to convert a number of vehicles of the Central Transport Authority fleet to LPG shortly.
  4. a. (i) 27; (ii) Nil; (iii) 7023; b. (i) 1 18; (U) Nil; (iii) 3187.

Master Builders Association Agreement (Question No. 4775)

Mr Ewen Cameron:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 27 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does the Master Builders ‘ Association agreement carry the imprimatur of the Trade Practices Commission.
  2. Has his attention been drawn to the statement of the Director of the Victorian Consumer Affairs Bureau that the Director would not sign the Master Builders’ Association Agreement.
  3. If so, is the arbitration clause of the agreement a Scott v Avery clause.
  4. Has the New South Wales Law Reform Commission described the Scott v Avery clause as an evil clause.
  5. Is the arbitration clause a mandatory clause.
  6. Does a somewhat similar arbitration clause appear in the building contract of the Commonwealth Savings Bank Document No. CSBH35 19.08.74.
  7. Will he investigate this clause and indicate whether it will be amended.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Trade Practices Commission on 10 January 1979 granted authorization to the members of the Master

Builders’ Association of Victoria to give effect to arrangements to prepare and publish nine different standard forms. In so doing the Commission stated:

In granting authorization the Commission is concerned that it be understood that such authorization is granted pursuant to the statutory public benefit test contained in section 90(6) of the Trade Practices Act. This determination should not be taken as implying that the forms authorized by the Commission ideally deal in all cases with the many and quite often different problems involved in negotiations between parties or that the Commission suggests that the authorized forms give proper or desirable legal protection to any particular party. In the ultimate an evaluation of these aspects is for each party to determine for himself in the context of each specific negotiation. Neither does the fact that the particular forms before the Commission have received authorization mean that other forms, perhaps quite different in their legal effect, may not also receive authorization if they comply with the test in section 90(6) of the Trade Practices Act. As has been pointed out in this determination it is the applicant, not the Commission, which takes ultimate responsibility for drafting matters. Further the Commission in this decision should not be taken as suggesting that parties should not, if they wish, utilize other forms in individual contracts or negotiate quite different individual conditions to suit specific fact situations ‘.

  1. I have been informed that the Director of the Victorian Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Mr Norman Geschke in an interview on a Melbourne ABC radio programme on 2 1 May 1979 said, with reference to standard form housing contracts prepared by the Master Builders’ Association of Victoria and the Housing Industry Association (containing Scott v Avery clauses): “If I was building a house I would not sign either of these contracts at the moment. I would have that arbitration clause altered so that I had the choice of going to the Bureau, to the Small Claims Tribunal, or to a Court or to an Arbitrator; but that should be written into the clause . . . “
  2. 1 understand that the arbitration clause in a number of Master Builders’ Association of Victoria standard forms of contract contains a contractual stipulation known as a Scott v Avery clause, whereby an award or other step in an arbitration is a condition of a cause of action or a defence.
  3. I understand that in its Report on Commercial Arbitration (L.R.C.27, 1976) the Law Reform Commission of New South Wales recommended that legislation should be introduced to avoid the requirements of Scott v Avery clauses.
  4. 5 ) I refer to my answer to question ( 1 ) above.
  5. I understand that the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, on the advice of its solicitors, has advised that the arbitration clause in the Commonwealth Savings Bank’s form of building contract is not a Scott v Avery clause.
  6. There is nothing in the Trade Practices Act which would enable the Minister to require the Commission to seek the amendment of this clause. I have been informed that the Commonwealth Savings Bank does not propose any amendment to the arbitration clause in its standard form of building contract.

Fortescue Oil Field (Question No. 4824)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 10 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Bureau of Mineral Resources completed its evaluation of the Fortescue oil field; if so, when will the report be released.
  2. Does the report support the claims of Esso/BHP that Fortescue is a new field rather than an extension of the Halibut field.
  3. If the evaluation has not been completed, when is it due to be completed.
  4. If Fortescue is found to be a new field, what additional revenue will accrue to Esso/BHP from the decision.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. to (4) See Mr Newman’s press statement of 27 November 1979. Copies of the Summary Report on the Classification of Oil in Fortescue Area by the Bureau of Mineral Resources are available on request from the Department of National Development and Energy.

Fire Tender Spare Parts (Question No. 4943)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the nature, cost and purpose of the fire tender spares referred to in contract LP3996 on page 79 of the Commonwealth of A ustralia Gazette of 1 8 September 1979.
  2. For what type of fire tender is each type of spare part intended.
  3. At which locations are these fire tenders operated.
  4. Is it necessary for Wormald International Pty Ltd to specially manufacture any of the spares referred to on a once-off basis or are they generally stocked products of the company.
  5. Are the spare parts manufactured in Australia; if not, what is their country of manufacture.
  6. Where are the spares to be located.
  7. Were import duties paid on the spares being purchased; if so, what sum was paid.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The spares being purchased under this contract are to be held to provide immediate restoration of service in the event of equipment breakdown.

Walter 6800 litre Ultra Large Fire Tenders.

The spares referred to in Contract LP3996 were obtained for the 10 ULFT’s located at:

Mt Isa, Brisbane, Coolangatta, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Hobart, Launceston, Adelaide, Darwin.

Additional spares will be required for the 6 x 6800 litre ULFT’s subsequently purchased by my Department and located (or to be located) at:

Avalon, Cairns, Adelaide, Rockhampton, Alice Springs, Mackay.

No. The spares are not normally stocked by Wormald International Pty Ltd.

No. U.S.A.

Item 1 in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne; Item 2 in Brisbane (3); and Melbourne (7); Items 3, 4 and 5 in Melbourne.

No.

Darwin Electricity Supply (Question No. 4962)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 1 8 October 1 979:

  1. What are the terms of reference of feasibility studies into proposals to use the Ord River Dam and potential hydro-electric resources within the Northern Territory to supply Darwin with electricity.
  2. 2 ) Have preliminary studies already been conducted, and have the reports of these studies been published; if not, when are the reports of the feasibility studies expected to be published.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The feasibility studies into proposals to use the Ord River Dam and potential hydro-electric resources within the Northern Territory to supply Darwin with electricity were commissioned by the State Energy Commission of Western Australia and the Northern Territory Electricity Commission. The detailed terms of reference are not publicly available.
  2. Preliminary studies have already been conducted into the Ord River Dam proposal and reports have been submitted by the consultants to the State Energy Commission of Western Australia and the Northern Territory Electricity Commission respectively. The reports have not been published. Publishing of the reports is a matter for the authorities in both Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

Land Commissions (Question No. 4965)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s Department or any Commonwealth Government or State Government body conducted any surveys on the effectiveness of land commissions in reducing the land price spiral for serviced building blocks since 1 976.
  2. ) Has there been any expenditure on land acquisition by land councils since 1976-77.
  3. What is the estimated expenditure for 1979-80.
  4. What proportion of land acquisition expenditures has been borne by the Commonwealth.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The operation of land commissions and similar bodies is a State responsibility and I would therefore expect State Governments to have undertaken relevant surveys into the effectiveness of their own operations. The Commonwealth, for its pan, reviews the activities of these bodies within the context of the financial agreements with the States.
  2. Yes.

  3. Estimated expenditure on land acquisition during 1979-80 is as follows:

    1. South Australian Land Commission, $470,000.
    2. Western Australian Urban Lands Council $5,000,000.
    3. Land Commission of New South Wales, $14,366,000.

  4. As regards land acquired for urban and non-urban purposes up to 30 June 1978 the percentage of expenditure attributable to Commonwealth funds is as follows:

    1. Land Commission of New South Wales, 42 per cent.
    2. Victorian Urban Land Council, 88 per cent.
    3. South Australian Land Commission, 75 per cent.
    4. ) Western Australia Urban Lands Council, 65 per cent.

Oil Consumption (Question No. 5031)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:

  1. Can the Minister state which International Energy Agency member countries have set oil consumption and /or oil import objectives.
  2. If so, can the Minister also state (a) what objectives have been established, (b) when they were established and (c) what specific measures are being implemented to restrain oil use to meet these objectives.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) All International Energy Agency (IEA) member countries have set oil consumption and/or oil import objectives.
  2. At the meeting of the IEA’s Governing Board at Ministerial level on 21 and 22 May 1979, Ministers of all IEA member countries confirmed the Board’s decision to reduce IEA demand for oil on the world market in the order of 2 million barrels per day during 1979. This figure would correspond to about 5 per cent of IEA consumption. The decision taken by the Board was aimed at achieving the 5 per cent reduction in demand for oil for the IEA as a whole. There was no quantification of the amount by which demand in any particular country should be reduced with the decision recognising each country’s particular oil requirements and policies already in place to meet the current situation. It was agreed, however, that each country would pursue policies that would contribute to the overall reduction. To achieve that result, IEA countries agreed to take steps to bring about effective measures, including appropriate pricing policies, strengthened voluntary programs, and mandatory action where necessary to reinforce the effect of other measures.

On 28-29 June 1979, the seven participating Governments at the Tokyo Economic Summit, all of whom except France being members of the IEA, agreed to set oil consumption and oil import objectives for the years 1980 to 1985. In reaching their decision, the participating Governments urged other industrialised countries, including the nonsummit IEA members, to set similar objectives for themselves. Accordingly, the matter of oil import objectives was taken up for consideration by the IEA.

On 10 December 1979, the Governing Board of the IEA met at Ministerial Level and all members committed themselves to limit their oil imports in 1980, and to pursue goals for their oil imports in 1985. Details of the objectives established are set out below:

Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission (Question No. 5036)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Why have the funds for research by the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission into matters connected with the need for, and delivery of, legal services been substantially reduced.
  2. What was the nature of the research carried out by the Commission during 1978-79.
  3. Will any of this research be jeopardised by cuts in funding.
  4. Has the Commission been fully staffed during 1978-79; if not, why not.
  5. What assistance was provided to each or any of the 12 Community Legal Services operating in Australia on a fulltime basis during 1978-79.
  6. What provision has been made for assistance to these centres in 1979-80.
  7. What steps does the Commission intend to take to foster the initiation or development of communitybased legal services in 1979-80.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The funds provided to the Commission for research have not been reduced. For externally commissioned research in 1979-80 $25,000 has been provided against $12,500 provided for that purpose in 1978-79. In addition it is open to the Commission to have a number or research projects conducted by its staff. The total funds provided for salaried staff, including research staff, has also been increased in 1979-80. Funds provided to the Commission take account of the need for restraint in all fields of public expenditure.

  2. During 1978-79 the following work was carried out by consultant researchers:

    1. an examination of the published material relating to the need and demand for legal services in Australia;
    2. b) a study of the objectives of major legal aid services in Australia and a report on the best method of evaluating the effectiveness of those services; and
    3. a brief for the framework for a study of the access and accountability of legal aid services.

Commission staff commenced the following research during 1978-79: an interstate comparison of legal aid costs ( completed ); a study of group legal services; and a study of social indicators.

  1. No. The funds provided will enable the research mentioned in paragraphs 2 (b) and (c) above to be completed and further projects to be undertaken.
  2. The Commission has not been fully staffed during 1978-79. Some staff members were not recruited until the later months of the financial year. The Commission has not succeeded in filling several positions, and a number of vacancies are advertised at present. The Commission has not yet recruited up to its staff ceiling level.
  3. Funds totalling $88,000 were made available to the following legal aid services during1978-79:
  1. Total assistance to community-based legal aid services in 1979-80 will be $270,000. This will comprise $175,000 specifically provided for such assistance in 1 979-80, together with $95,000 paid from funds appropriated to New South Wales in1977-78 and held in trust for distribution as directed by the Commonwealth.
  2. In its Second Annual Report the Commission has strongly supported the concept of voluntary and communitybased legal schemes, but has not indicated the steps it intends to take to foster such schemes. To the extent that it is practicable to do so, the Government is assisting the development of such schemes through special grants.

Chairs at Airports (Question No. 5068)

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. How many SE100 chairs were purchased by his Department for use at Australian Airports.
  2. When were these chairs purchased.
  3. What was the cost to his Department of these chairs.
  4. How serviceable have the chairs proved to be.
  5. Is it a fact that 2 of the chairs in use at Sydney airport have collapsed.
  6. Is is also a fact that a contractor has been employed to modify the chairs.
  7. If so, what has been the cost to his Department for the modification ofSE100 chairs.
  8. 8 ) Has the base of the chairs been attached to an H frame with inferior belts.
  9. When will chairs be purchased to replace the SE 100.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. ) 420 Chairs have been purchased.
  2. 2 ) The first consignment of chairs was purchased in1967. Further supplies of the chairs have been purchased since on an ‘ad hoc’ basis, 8 having been purchased in the last 4 years.
  3. The price of the chairs has gradually increased over the 10-year period 1967-1977. The current price is approximately $ 1 80 per chair.
  4. Because the chairs are in constant use, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, they are put under tremendous stress and strain by a number of different users. Repairs necessitated by this constant use have been minimal and of a minor nature. As Sydney Airport is the only location where the SE100 chairs have had to be modified since their introduction in 1967, the Department considers the SE 1 00 have served their purpose quite adequately.
  5. ) Yes, two chairs at Sydney Airport have collapsed.
  6. The firm of Payne and Hirst, 8 Little Queen Street, Chippendale, Sydney, was engaged to repair the two broken chairs. The contractor considered the fixing point inside the chairs to be inadequate; as a result of this, the SE 100 chairs at Sydney Airport were fitted with a more substantial fitting.
  7. The contractor has quoted S2S to S3S per chair, total costS250-$300.
  8. No. The contractor considered the fixing point inside the seat to be inadequate.
  9. Since 1975 ‘Domore’ type chairs have been progressively purchased to replace the SE 100 ‘s. The Department of Transport, which constantly reviews the question of suitability of this type of chair is currently testing a Wilkhahn chair to see whether it is preferable to both the SE 100 and Domore’ types.

Brisbane Airport (Question No. 5069)

Mr Scholes:

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

Is he satisfied that the public submission by his Department to the Parliamentary Committee on Public Works in its Brisbane Airport Inquiry, supports the proposal.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Yes. I refer the honourable member to the response to the Committee’s Report on Brisbane Airport Redevelopment made in the House of Representatives on 22 November 1979, by the then Minister for Transport, the Hon. P. J. Nixon, MP, and, in particular, to the Minister’s comments on the Committee ‘s conclusions and recommendations.

Australian Flag Vessels (Question No. 5090)

Mr Morris:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:

What were the (a) quantities, (b) percentages and (c) value of (i) import cargoes by category and (ii) export cargoes by category lifted by Australian flag vessels in the years 1975-76 to 1978-79 inclusive.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The Australian Statistician has provided, in Tables 1 and 2 below, the freight quantities and revenue tonnes for overseas cargo loaded and discharged in Australia, by both Australian flag vessels and all vessels for the years 1975-76 to 1978-79 inclusive. The tables also indicate the percentage of revenue tonnes loaded and discharged by Australian flag vessels relative to all flag vessels.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not compile statistics on cargoes loaded or discharged by Australian flag vessels by category (commodity) by value.

Oil Companies: Pricing Policies (Question No. 5110)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a series of charges made by the United States of America Department of Energy against 5 of the largest oil companies for violation of price regulations and for overcharging customers by more than $365m, and to reports that these alleged violations bring to almost $7 billion the total sum of the charges brought against the 35 largest oil refineries by that Department.
  2. Is the Minister able to say whether these alleged violations were discovered by Federal auditors after going over the corporate books.
  3. Do qualified government auditors examine the books of oil companies in Australia; if so, is the examination as detailed as that conducted in the US; if not, why not.
  4. Will his Depanment consult with US officials to dertermine the methods used by oil companies to violate price regulations, and the means of detection used by US authorities.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The discovery of these alleged violations resulted from investigations, including the auditing of company records, by the US Government’s Federal Department of Energy.
  3. It is not the practice for Government auditors to examine the books of companies in Australia. The Government has no plans to institute this practice either generally or in a way which would place a discriminatory requirement on oil companies.
  4. The US has a complex system of pricing regulations and laws under which producers and refiners operate. It is the complexity of this system which leads to a system of Federal auditing. In Australia a different system operates in which the States can determine prices and the Commonwealth has limited authority in this respect. Because of the different institutional structures governing this matter in the US and Australia consultations between officials are not warranted.

Natural Gas Utilisation and Transportation Study (Question No. 5112)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister release the updated Australian Natural Gas Utilisation and Transportation study, referred to in the 6th Annual Report of the Pipeline Authority.
  2. What effect does this revised study have on the critical dates for national decisions on natural gas supply options which were identified in the original report.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The study referred to is being examined within the Department of National Development and Energy. There are no plans for its publication at this time.

Food Prices: Advertising (Question No. 51 14)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is there abundant evidence of manufacturers giving incentives, kickbacks, discounts and allowances to supermarkets and large retailers to pay them for advertising the manufacturers ‘ products.
  2. ) Is it a fact that these handouts to key accounts are running at higher than 2.2 per cent of purchases.
  3. Is it also a fact that key retailers, such as Safeways in Melbourne, have recently increased their incentive fee spectacularly.
  4. Has this practice contributed to sharp increases in food prices which are being passed on to the consumer.
  5. What were the recommendations of the Prices Justification Tribunal inquiry into the processed food industry.
  6. What action is the Government proposing to take about these recommendations, and when will it be taken.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. to (6) The Prices Justification Tribunal’s examination of prices and margins applying to the manufacture, wholesaling and retailing of processed foods was undertaken at the request of my predecessor because of the Government’s concern to ensure that price increases for these products were not excessive having regard to seasonal movements in the prices of fresh foodstuffs and other costs incurred by the industry.

The Tribunal ‘s report which was publicly released on 20 January 1 980 is essentially a study of the industry and contains no firm recommendations for specific action. Instead it details the Tribunal’s findings and conclusions about certain aspects of the industry and its operations.

In general, the report concluded that price increases for processed foods other than meat, have not been excessive and were broadly in line with price movements as reflected in the CPI. The PJT found that retail meat prices which had risen on average by 34.1 per cent in 1978-79 had been the main factor contributing to the recent large movements in the food group of the CPI. Retail prices of processed foods, other than meat, had risen by only 7.1 per cent during 1978-79.

The report also focussed upon a number of other matters concerning the processed foods industry, including the level of competition, pricing and profitability of the manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing sectors of the industry. It also commented on areas in the manufacturing sector where costs and cost increases might be reduced and on the marketing practices of businesses operating in the wholesale and retail sectors.

In regard to advertising and promotional expenditure the PJT found that the cost of retailers advertising was borne predominantly by manufacturers by way of cash payments, additional discounts, free stock or co-operative advertising and subsidies.

The Tribunal commented that these practices may be encouraging avoidable costs if excessive advertising is being applied by retailers.

On 31 January 1980 I announced that the Government had noted that most of the matters commented upon by the PJT appeared to be capable of resolution by the various sectors of the industry concerned and that the report would be brought to the attention of the industry through the Processed Food Industry Advisory Council.

With regard to wholesale/retail margins on high turnover products and house-brand products, I have asked the PJT to monitor, through its normal surveillance role, such margins applied by the major wholesalers and retailers. I have also asked the PJT in the light of this monitoring, to report to me on what further action, if any, might in its view be appropriate in regard to wholesale and retail prices for processed foods.

Rail Link between Darwin and Alice Springs (Question No. 5150)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) By whom is the benefit-cost study of a standard gauge rail link between Darwin and Alice Springs referred to in a news release dated 7 August 1 979 being conducted.
  2. What are the names, qualifications and positions of the principal officers engaged in the study.
  3. Is the study of a broader nature than the previous Loder Committee investigation.
  4. When is the study likely to be completed.
  5. Will the possible economies which would result from utilising the labour and equipment at present employed on the Tarcoola/Alice Springs line in further’ construction following the completion of that link, be included in the study’s estimations.
  6. Has the study taken public evidence from interested persons; if so, where, from whom, when and by what meanswas the evidence gathered.
  7. Will he make the results of the study available to the House; if so, when.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) The study is being undertaken jointly by officers of the Commonwealth Department of Transport and the Northern Territory Department of Transport and Works, with inputs from other Departments and bodies.
  2. No. It is specifically concerned with the benefits and costs of a railway from Alice Springs to Darwin taking account of defence considerations, impact on development and social and energy aspects.
  3. It is hoped the study report will be available by the end of March.
  4. Yes.
  5. Press reports that the study was being undertaken should ensure adequate opportunity for interested parties to put their view.
  6. When the joint report is available, I will consult the Northern Territory Minister for Transport and Works on the question of its public release.

Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (Question No. 5157)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 3 September 1979:

What sums were paid by the Commonwealth in the Electoral Divisions of

the Northern Territory, (2) Canberra, (3) Kalgoorlie, (4) Perth, (5) Swan, (6) Stun, (7) Kingston, (8) Ballarat, (9) Bendigo, ( 10)Deakin, (11) McMillan, (12) Isaacs, (13) Henty, (14) Holt, (15) La Trobe, (16) Hotham, (17) Bass, (18) Franklin, (19) Braddon, (20) Wilmot, (21) Denison, (22) Wide Bay, (23) Herbert, (24) Fadden, (25) Dawson, (26) Lilley, (27) Bowman, (28) Brisbane, (29) Leichhardt, (30) Calare, (31) Eden Monaro, (32) Cook, (33) Lowe, (34) Barton, (35)

Macquarie, (36) St George, (37) Phillip and (38) Macarthur for development grants and maintenance grants under the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan During

1975-76, (b) 1976-77, (c) 1977-78, (d) 1978-79, (e) 1 July 1979 to date.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Warning Satellite System (Question No. 5167)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1 979:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the journal Aviation Week and Space Technology, dated 6 August 1979, entitled ‘Improvements Planned by USAF Tor Warning Satellite System ‘.
  2. If so, did the Government have prior knowledge of the developments described.
  3. When will the new system of ground terminals attain its initial operational capability.
  4. Will the Joint Defence Space Research Facility be shut down when the new system reaches this capability.
  5. Will he ensure that no similar mobile terminal will be operated in Australia.
  6. If not, will he ensure that no mobile terminal will be operated in Australia except under public agreement between the Australian and United States of America Governments concluded specifically for that purpose; if not, why not.
  7. Does any agreement on this matter exist; if so, which agreement; if not, have negotiations for an agreement been commenced or are they in prospect.
  8. Will he also ensure that the commencement of negotiations for an agreement and the conclusion of that agreement will be made public at the time; if not, why not.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I do not propose to comment on the article itself. It is sufficient for me to state that I am conscious of the nature of technological research and development which was described to the United States Congress by Dr Perry, Under Secretary of Defence Research and Engineering in the US Department of Defence, to whose testimony the article refers.
  3. ) The program referred to is in the early stages of development, and consistent with US policy, the initial operational capability date has not been released.
  4. The Government stands by the practice of previous Australian Governments neither to confirm nor deny speculation or assertion regarding the joint Australia-US defence facility at Pine Gap.
  5. to (8) See answer to (4) above. All that I am willing to state is that decisions- including Agreements- on such matters require the agreement of the Australian Government of the day and include decisions on public handling. I offer no information on whether agreement has been or would be sought by the U.S.

Defence: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5189)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 November 1 979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1 975.
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. and (2) There have been no such openings since December 1975 at which I was so represented.

Attorney-General: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5193)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which:

    1. local Federal Government Member,
    2. local Federal Opposition Member,
    3. Government Senator, or
    4. d ) Opposition Senator officially represented the Attorney-General since December 1975.
    1. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Attorney-General was represented by-
  2. a Government Senator, Senator P. D. Durack, at the official opening of the Family Court of Western Australia on 1 June 1976; (ti) a local Federal Government Member, Mr H. G. P. Chapman, M.P., the member for Kingston, at the formal opening of the Legal Services Commission of South Australia on 26 January 1979.
  3. On neither occasion were Government cheques handed over.

Home Affairs: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5204)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1 979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1 975.
  2. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

The information sought is not readily available from the Department’s records and I am not prepared at this time to direct staff resources away from other important work to assemble this information.

However, if the honourable member has a particular interest in any specific project I would be pleased to try and provide a response.

Shipping Freight Rates: Sydney to Norfolk Island (Question No. 5211)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the average cost per tonne for sea freight shipped from Sydney to (a) Norfolk Island, (b) Auckland, (c) Noumea, (d) Honiara and (e) Port Moresby.
  2. What are the reasons for any differences in the freight rates.
  3. Are these reasons adequate to explain any differences in the freight rates.
  4. What shipping lines carry sea freight to Norkfolk Island.
  5. Are any of these companies’ freight rates from Sydney to Norfolk Island excessive; if so, for what reasons.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The following table gives indicative general cargo sea freight rates from Sydney to Norfolk Island, Auckland, Noumea, Honiara and Port Moresby as at I January, 1980.
  1. Freight rates vary for many reasons including the amount of cargo carried, value of cargo, availability of return cargoes, competitiveness of shipping lines, stevedoring costs etc.
  2. Yes.
  3. Compagnie des Chargeurs Caledoniens is the only shipping line carrying freight to Norfolk Island.
  4. 5 ) As access to data on the vessel ‘s operating costs, vessel utilisation, operating company’s profitability is not available, it is not possible to form an opinion as to whether or not the rates to Norfolk Island are excessive.

Direct Broadcasting Satellites (Question No. 5238)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon, notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) In view of the lack of information on the matter under inquiry in the reference given by him in answer to part ( 3 ) of my question No. 4720 (Hansard, 10 October 1979, page 2290), do differences in opinion and policy exist between Telecom Australia and his office or his Department over the adoption of a direct broadcasting satellite by Australia; if so, what are the reasons for each and any difference of opinion and policy between Telecom Australia and his Department and his office over any Australian DBS.
  2. Is this question answered by (a) Telecom Australia, (b) his Department or (c) his office.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The question of a Direct Broadcasting Satellite (DBS) Service as such has not been the subject of policy differences between Telecom Australia, my Department or my office.

Canberra Housing Statistics (Question No. 5247)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 22 November 1979.

What various statistics are collected by (a) his Department and (b) the National Capital Development Commission in the description of (i) government housing and government tenants and (ii) private housing, private housing commencements, private tenants and house-owners.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

– I am informed by my Department as follows:

  1. The Department of the Capital Territory maintains the following statistics relating to:

  2. government housing and government tenants stock of dwellings dwelling availability allocations of dwellings waiting list for housing average waiting time before a dwelling is available number of applications made and approved for emergency housing sales of houses to tenants

    1. private housing, private housing commencements, private tenants and house owners residential leases allocated upon payment of a deposit residential leases granted following payment of full purchase price numbers of sites where right to a lease has lapsed, been withdrawn or been surrendered numbers of sites available for lease dissected having regard to location and price range numbers of private or government dwellings sold each month numbers of building approvals granted in respect of new structures or alterations to existing structures numbers of buildings completed
  3. The National Capital Development Commission maintains the following statistics relating to (i) and (ii) in Belconnen, Woden, Weston Creek and Tuggeranong only number of Commonwealth owned dwellings under construction or completed number of private enterprise dwellings under construction or completed numbers of houses occupied or vacant.

Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation (Question No. 5249)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did a former Director-General, of Joint Communications in his Department currently working for Ford Aerospace, (i) receive an offer of or (ii) seek an offer of employment with that company while still in the service of the public.
  2. Will Ford Aerospace in all likelihood profit in the market place from that Director-General’s experience, particularly his experience on the White Satellite Task Force.
Mr Killen:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I assume the officer referred to is Brigadier D. J. McMillen. I understand that he received an offer of employment.

  1. Brigadier McMillen is a person of broad experience in the areas of electronics, communications and management, gained over many years in a variety of positions in the Army and in the Department of Defence. His experience in these areas extends well beyond his short participation in the Commonwealth Government Task Force which considered the need for a National Communications Satellite System. Whether Ford Aerospace will in all likelihood profit in the marketplace from his experience is a judgement for Ford Aerospace.

Australian National Railways Commission: Port Adelaide (Question No. 5252)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What specific advantages will be gained by the transfer of approximately 57 employees from the Australian National Railways Commission’s Port Dock Station to Mile End,SA.
  2. Has this action resulted in the cost of these employees’ wages being debited against Mile End ‘s accounts rather than Port Dock with no saving to the Commission.
  3. In view of statements by customers forwarding less than truckload consignments that they will not transfer their custom from Port Dock to Mile End due to the extra expense incurred, will the Commission lose revenue as a result of the changes at Port Dock.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The transfer of Australian National Railways employees from Port Adelaide to Mile End is the result of ANR’s rationalisation of less-than- wagon load freight handling by transferring this traffic to Mile End. ANR has indicated that the following advantages will result from the new arrangements:

    1. substantial reductions in operating expenditure
    2. more efficient utilisation of rollingstock
    3. more efficient utilisation of train operating staff and station staff
    4. savings through elimination of duplicated handling and accounting costs
    5. gaining additional wagon load traffic of a more profitable nature through the increased availability of rail facilities at Port Adelaide.
  2. ANR advises that surplus employees from Port Adelaide have been redeployed to overcome manpower shortages at Mile End and elsewhere. Staff at Mile End have increased marginally to cater for the greater volume of traffic, but ANR expects that an overall reduction of up to 43 people will eventually be possible.
  3. ANR advises that there may be some relatively small loss in revenue, but that this will be more than offset by the substantial reductions in expenditure.

Australian National Railways Commission: Port Adelaide (Question No. 5253)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 November1979:

  1. ) Is it a fact that the Australian National Railways Commission’s Port Dock has long played an integral pan in the commercial life of Port Adelaide, S.A.
  2. Are many forwarding merchant’s depots located in close proximity to the Port Dock station and enjoying an economic advantage from this location.
  3. What are the implications for the economic life of the Port Adelaide area if the alterations to freight handling arrangements at Port Dock commenced on 1 November1979.
  4. In view of the worsening fuel crisis is it desirable to locate rail facilities in close proximity to major areas of custom and to maintain this proximity where it already exists.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Railway facilities have always been important to the commercial activities of Port Adelaide and they will continue to be important. The only change that has occurred at Port Adelaide is the transfer of less than wagon load traffic to Mile End. ANR does not intend to alter transport arrangements for wagon load consignments such as grain, fertiliser and overseas containers. These consignments represent the great majority of rail traffic generated by industry in this area, and earn revenue for the railways in excess of $6 million per year.
  2. More than ISO firms despatch goods spasmodically from Port Adelaide but only 20 or so regularly despatch a significant volume of less than wagon load consignments. Regular customers are up to 7 km from Port Adelaide.
  3. The changes to freight handling at port Adelaide have been in operation for over three months and ANR advises that there has been no visible impact on the economy of the area. Before the changes were implemented, ANR held discussions with customers and 90 per cent said they would accept the change. Every effort has been made by ANR to make alternative arrangements for any significantly disadvantaged customers.
  4. Under the new arrangements, no customer is required to travel more than 12 km extra, and some travel less. Additional fuel required would have little impact on the fuel crisis.

Australian National Railways Commission: Port Adelaide (Question No. S2S4)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Port Adelaide Chamber of Commerce criticised the removal of small parcels services and restriction of inward and outward freight handling to truckloads only at the Australian National Railways Commission’s port Dock Station.
  2. If so, will he review these changes so that the objections may be given the fullest consideration.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Australian National Railways advise that they have not been contacted directly by the Port Adelaide Chamber of Commerce on this matter.

Fuel Stocks (Question No. 4079)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 30 May:

What stocks of (a) crude oil, (b) aviation gasoline, (c) motor spirit, (d) aviation turbine fuel, (e) lighting kerosene, (f) heating oil, (g) power kerosene, (h) automotive distillate, (j) industrial fuel oil, (k) furnace fuel oil and (1) liquefied petroleum gas were held in Australia for local consumption in each month since January 1978.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The Department of National Development and Energy has collected details of stocks on a monthly basis only since January 1 979. This information is regarded as confidential.

Lead in Petrol (Question No. 4622)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the report of the study Lead Burden of Sydney Schoolchildren (January 1979) by V. P. Garnys, R. Freeman and L. E. Smythe.
  2. If so, was the Minister’s attention drawn to the findings and recommendations of the report, particularly those which related to automotive exhaust and levels of lead.
  3. In view of the findings of this study on the adverse effects of lead in petrol on the health of school children, what action has the Minister taken or will he take to ensure the implementation of each of these recommendations.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  2. As indicated in answers by my colleagues to identical questions (Question No. 4620, Hansard, 9 October 1979, page 1797; Question No. 4621, Hansard, 25 September 1979, page 1535; Question No. 4623, Hansard6 November 1979, page 2666), the issue of the effect of lead additives in petrol on health is the direct concern of my colleague the Hon. M. J. R. MacKellar, Minister for Health, and of his State counterparts.

I have nothing further to add to the answers already given by my colleagues.

Moscow Narodny Bank Ltd (Question No. 4959)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that a certain Queensland property (a) is mortgaged to the Moscow-Narodny Bank Ltd and (b) was acquired with loans from that foreign-owned and controlled bank.
  2. If so, what action will be taken by the Government to prevent that property from becoming subject to foreign takeover in the event of failure to honour the loans.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a ) and ( b ) Any mortgage of real estate in Australia in favour of a non-resident would require the prior authority of the Reserve Bank under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations. Current exchange control policy does not preclude such a transaction to support an overseas borrowing by an Australian resident. However, it is not the practice of the Reserve Bank publicly to disclose information on individual exchange control applications as this would be a breach of confidentiality accorded to such transactions.
  2. The Foreign Takeovers Act does not prevent the acquisition of property by way of enforcement of a security held solely for the purposes of a money lending agreement. Similarly the Government in the administration of its foreign investment policy would not normally attempt to intervene to frustrate a lender from taking action to enforce his security for a loan transaction. To do so could seriously affect the ability of Australians to borrow abroad on the security of assets in Australia. The Government would, however, expect a lender who has exercised such rights to sell the property to Australians or other eligible purchasers as soon as possible.

Deaths on Aircraft (Question No. 5103)

Mr Jull:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many passengers have died in flight on Qantas aircraft between Australia and points in Europe since 1 February 1979.
  2. How many passengers who died, originally held advance purchase tickets. - (3) What checks are made of aged passengers purchasing advance purchase tickets, as to their condition to undertake major long haul journeys.
  3. Do foreign airlines advise his Department of deaths which occur on their flights to and from Australia; if so, how many Australians have died on their flights since 1 February 1979.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Four passengers have died in flight on Qantas aircraft between Australia and points in Europe during the period 4 February to 13 October 1979;
  2. 2 ) Two passengers;
  3. Qantas does not routinely institute medical checks on intending passengers on the basis of a passenger’s age. However, if a passenger, on arrival at an airport, is apparently suffering from some medical condition, that passenger may be requested by Qantas staff to undergo a medical examination before entering the aircraft. In addition, any passenger who admits to a medical condition or who makes special requests, indicating a medical condition exists, is requested to have a Qantas Medical Fitness for Air Travel Form completed by their doctor. This is forwarded to Qantas Medical Services who act on the information supplied;
  4. No.

Deaths on Aircraft (Question No. 5104)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 15 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What procedures are undertaken following the death in flight on (a) Australian domestic airlines and (b) Qantas aircraft.
  2. Who bears the cost of the freight of the return of the remains of any passenger to their home.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) In the event of death in flight on domestic airlines, the aircraft Captain radios ahead to the Senior Airline Officer at the arrival port. The Senior Airline Officer then:

    1. advises the Department of Transport Airport Manager
    2. arranges, if possible, for a medical authority to meet the aircraft on arrival or as soon as possible after landing and
    3. arranges for the passenger’s record to be extracted from the reservations system and, if available, identifies address and contact details.

The relevant police are notified by the Department of Transport Officers and, in agreement with the police authority, a public address announcement is made to contact any person in the terminal who may be awaiting the deceased. The police then arrange for transport and storage of the remains.

  1. In the event of death in flight on a Qantas aircraft, the Captain notifies the Qantas Airport Manager, or the person responsible for handling Qantas aircraft at the port of arrival, of death, if certified by a registered medical practitioner or, when not certified, notifies of possible death and requests appropriate authorities to meet the aircraft.

    1. The return of remains is arranged by relatives/executors at their expense.

Urban Public Transport Program (Question No. 5158)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1979:

What sums were paid by the Commonwealth in the Electoral Divisions of ( 1 ) Northern Territory, (2) Canberra, (3) Kalgoorlie, (4) Perth, (5) Swan, (6) Sturt, (7) Kingston, (8) Ballarat, (9) Bendigo, (10) Deakin, (11) McMillan, (12) Isaacs, ( 13) Henty, ( 14) Holt, ( 15) La Trobe, ( 16) Hotham, (17) Bass, (18) Franklin, (19) Braddon, (20) Wilmot, (21) Denison, (22) Wide Bay, (23) Herbert, (24) Fadden, (25) Dawson, (26) Lilley, (27) Bowman, (28) Brisbane, (29) Leichhardt, (30) Calare, (31) Eden-Monaro, (32) Cook, (33) Lowe, (34) Barton, (35) Macquarie, (36) St George, (37) Phillip and (38) Macarthur for each urban public transport program during (a) 1975-76, (b) 1976-77, (c) 1977-78, (d) 1978-79 and (e) 1 July 1979 to date.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

Commonwealth assistance in respect of urban public transport is not evaluated or allocated on the basis of Electoral Divisions. The information requested is therefore not available.

I should comment that the Electoral Divisions of Northern Territory, Canberra, Kalgoorlie, McMillan, Braddon, Wilmot, Wide Bay, Herbert, Dawson, Calare and EdenMonaro are outside the urban areas specified under the legislation.

Commonwealth assistance paid to the States under the Urban Public Transport Improvement program for the period specified is set out in the table below.

Historic Houses in Canberra (Question No. 5245)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the (a) age, (b) ownership and (c) address of (i) the 50 oldest Government built houses and (ii) the 50 oldest private built houses in Canberra.
  2. Which of these houses are in blocks zoned for redevelopment.
  3. What, for each, is the existing zoning and proposed zoning.
  4. Which of these houses are classified by (a) the National Trust and (b) any other historical society (by name) for (i) preservation and (ii) any other lesser conservation category.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– I am informed by my Department as follows:

  1. The question has been interpreted as applying to houses built in accordance with the planned layout of Canberra, accordingly early housing built on land that is now leased to the Australian National University and ‘temporary’ cottages built to house workmen in areas such as the Causeway have not been taken into consideration.

While no assurance can be given that the houses listed are the ‘oldest’ built in Canberra, those listed are among the first occupied in the new City.

  1. 50 oldest Government-built houses
  1. 50 oldest private-built houses
  1. Only those houses located in Kingston.
  2. All of the other sites may only be used for single detached houses.
  3. None.

Industrial Relations: Industrial Dispute Advertisements (Question No. 5258)

Mr Kerin:

asked the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 November1979:

  1. ) Have advertisements been placed in the media stating the Government’s or his Department’s position on any industrial dispute; if so, on what occasions, with which media and what was the cost.
  2. Was the money spent from a budgetary, special or permanent appropriation; if so, from which appropriation.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. No advertisements, stating the Government’s or my Department’s position on any industrial dispute have been placed in the media by my Department.
  2. The question is not relevant.

Property Purchased by Australia Post and Telecom Australia (Question No. 4783)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does (a) Australia Post or (b) Telecom Australia have to (i) seek or (ii) gain the approval of the Department of Administrative Services before acquiring property of any kind.
  2. If so, does this apply to upgrading a post office from non-official to official status, and what is the reason for this requirement.
  3. Is he able to state whether the position is the same for (a) any or (b) all other statutory authorities; if so, which authorities.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Under the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955, Australia Post and Telecom Australia are required to seek the approval of the Minister for Administrative Services or his delegate before acquiring any real property.
  2. Yes, but only insofar as the upgrading of a post office involves the acquisition of land or buildings.
  3. The provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 do not apply to a corporation that is a company or an incorporated association, society or body of trustees, or any other corporation specifically exempted by the Minister for Administrative Services. Those currently exempted are as follows:

ACT Electricity Authority

Australian National University

Australian National Airlines Commission

Australian War Memorial Board of Trustees

Canberra College of Advanced Education

Canberra Hospital Management Board

Canberra Theatre Trust

Christmas Island Phosphate Commission

Commissioner for Housing (of the ACT)

Commonwealth Banking Corporation

Commonwealth Development Bank

Commonwealth Savings Bank

Commonwealth Trading Bank

Director of Defence Service Homes

Health Insurance Commission

Joint Coal Board

Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust

Reserve Bank of Australia.

World Heritage List (Question No. 5023)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:

Which places have been (a) recommended by the Australian Heritage Commission for registration and (b) registered on the world heritage list.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. Kakadu Region and the Great Barrier Reef.
  2. Nil.

Register of the National Estate (Question No. 5024)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 6 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Which proposals for foreign investment were commented on by the Australian Heritage Commission during (a) 1977-78 and (b) 1978-79.
  2. In which cases did the Commission advise that the proposal threatened to (a) destroy or (b) significantly damage a place which has been entered in, or publicly proposed for entering in, the Register of the National Estate.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. I am advised that the Australian Heritage Commission commented in general terms on 29 foreign investment proposals in 1977-78 and 14 in 1978-79. Information on individual foreign investment proposals is treated in confidence and it would be inappropriate to provide details of the cases.
  2. ) There have been no cases in which the Australian Heritage Commission has found it necessary to advise that a proposal threatened to destroy or significantly damage a place which has been entered in, or publicly proposed for entering in, the Register of the National Estate.

Oil Companies: Pricing Policies (Question No. 51 11)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports of massive third quarterly profits by international oil companies which were recently announced in the United States of America.
  2. Is it a fact, as reported in Newsweek of 5 November 1979, that the bulk of these profits came from outside the US, in particular Europe, where oil companies are not constrained by the kind of price controls that exist in the US.
  3. Is it also a fact that the oil companies buy much of their oil at the relatively low Saudi price of $ 1 8 a barrel, and then refine and sell it as gasoline and other products in Europe at prices that reflect the highest crude prices that other OPEC countries charge.
  4. As the Government has recently reduced Prices Justification Tribunal scrutiny of imported oil purchases, can he give an assurance that oil companies are not overcharging for imported oil brought into Australia as they are doing in Europe.
  5. What proportion of oil imported into Australia originates, as claimed by oil companies, from Saudi Arabia.
  6. Has this proportion declined during the last few years, if so, why.
  7. What proportion of oil imported into Australia is purchased at spot market prices.
  8. Has this proportion increased during the last few years, if so, why.
  9. How does the Government determine the origin of oil imported into Australia for the purposes of price determination.
  10. What quantity of the huge third quarterly profits of the international oil companies was derived from sales in, and to, Australia.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. We have no information to suggest that the report referred to is not factual.
  3. 3 ) During the period 1 July 1 979 to 3 1 October 1 979, the four companies involved in the Aramco operation in Saudi Arabia, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco and Standard Oil of California, purchased oil at the official price of SUS18 per barrel. These companies would have gained an advantage from refining and selling this oil in Europe in competition with oil purchased by other companies at a higher cost.
  4. and (9) As was the case before the Prices Justification Act was amended in May 1979, the oil companies are required to notify their proposed price increases to the Prices Justification Tribunal. A function of the Prices Justification Tribunal is to determine whether such proposals are justified by the costs incurred by the oil companies in importing crude oil.
  5. and (6) The following statistics show little indication of a decline in the proportion of crude oil imported from Saudi Arabia:
  1. 7 ) and ( 8 ) Precise information on imports at spot prices is not available. However, information available to the Department of National Development and Energy indicates that a significant amount of crude oil is now imported at above official prices reflecting changes in the world oil trading scene. As a result, an increased volume of oil was imported into Australia during 1 979 at above official prices.
  2. 10) Oil company profits in Australia are reported as required under companies legislation. These profits relate to the processing, distribution and marketing of indigenous and imported crude oil and derived products. The dissection of profits along the lines sought is not available.

Australian Heritage Commission (Question No. 5118)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

Will the Government consider introducing into the Parliament legislation to amend the Australian Heritage Commission Act to ensure greater co-operation between State Governments and the Heritage Commission in those cases where State Governments disagree with the Commission’s inclusion of an area or a building on its heritage list (register) as has occurred with the Bellevue Hotel and Mt Etna in Queensland.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

A decision to review the Australian Heritage Commission Act was announced in February 1979. The review will examine the relationships between this Act and other Commonwealth environmental legislation. The opportunity will also be taken to consider certain possible amendments of a machinery nature that may be desirable in the light of several years experience with the Act. The review will also have regard to reports on environmental legislation by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. Suggested amendments to the Act will be considered in the context of the review process.

Overseas Telecommunications Commission: House Rented to Mr H. White (Question No. 5237)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) With reference to my question No. 4539 (Hansard, 8 November 1979, page 2868), asked 29 August 1979, what has been the weekly rental paid by Mr Harold White during the period of his occupancy, postdating his retirement from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission of a Commission-owned house in Double Bay.
  2. What was the weekly rental paid by Mr White in the same house prior to his retirement.
  3. When was the last rise in weekly rental for this house.
  4. What was the rental prior to this rise.
  5. What was the New South Wales Valuer-General valuation of the house at the time of the last rental rise.
  6. Who was the Commission tenant at the time of the last rental rise.
  7. 7 ) How long has Mr White been a tenant of the OTC.
  8. What is the total rent paid by him over that time.
  9. Has Mr White paid (a) all or (b) part of the (i) electricity, (ii) gas, (iii) rates and (iv) telephone bills in addition to his rental for any OTC owned or leased house.
  10. If so, when and to what extent.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) $39.33 per week from 4 May to 5 September 1 979 and $78.67 per week from 6 September 1979 to date premises were vacated, i.e. to 1 1 December 1979.
  2. $78.67 per week.
  3. 23 December 1978.
  4. $75.64 per week.
  5. 5 ) There was no valuation as at 23 December 1 978 but as advised in response to Question No. 4539, a valuation by the Valuer-General for New South Wales dated 26 June 1979 was in the amount of $ 1 35,000.

  6. Mr H.White.

  7. Since 21 April 1972.
  8. $25,950.
  9. Mr White paid for all electricity and gas whilst the Commission paid the Municipal and water rates; in respect of the telephone service, Mr White was granted the facility of a semi-official telephone.
  10. 1 0 ) See answer to ( 9 ) above.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 21 February 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800221_reps_31_hor117/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant