House of Representatives
2 April 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 1575

DEATH OF MR FRANK COURTNAY

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House of the death of Mr Frank Courtnay, a former member of this House. Mr Courtnay, who died on 31 March 1980, represented the division of Darebin from 1958 until his retirement in 1969. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased I invite honourable members to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places;

Mr SPEAKER:

– I thank the House.

page 1575

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 Calder.

Petition received.

Australian Rum: Excise Duty

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

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

That the retail price of Australian rum is too high and should be reduced to enable the average Australian to buy it.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that steps be taken to reduce the excise duty on Australian rum.

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

Petition received.

Human Rights Commission Bill

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:

An amendment to the Human Rights Commission Bill 1 979 which secures the rights of human beings before as well as after birth be upheld by the Parliament.

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

Petition received.

Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

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

Employees and Self-Employed Contributions to approved Superannuation Fund.

Your petitioners humbly pray that:

  1. Contributions paid each year to Superannuation Funds should be removed from the Rebate System and made a separate deduction from Assessable Income,
  2. The amount allowed as a deduction to be at least that required to provide a retirement benefit of $ 1 55,400.

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

Petition received.

Labelling of Cosmetices

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 continued use of animal ingredients in cosmetic products, and the inhumane use of animals in scientific research for cosmetic products is abhorrent and barbaric.

That the Industries Assistance Commission, because of the Commission’s terms of reference, seems unable to impose any regulation or recommend any regulation which might restrict the activities of Cosmetic Companies which produce cosmetics in which animal ingredientshave been used, or for which animals were subjected to research.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will: Legislate to require comprehensive labelling of perfumes, cosmetics and toilet preparations to indicate:

  1. 1 ) whether a product contains any animal derivative. If so, the ingredient and source should be indicated.
  2. whether the research and development of that product or any of its ingredients involved experimentation on animals.

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

Petition received.

Brisbane Airport

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

That the proposed re-development of the Brisbane International Airport as shown in the Statement of Evidence and Supporting Drawings presented to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works will cause undue hardship to large numbers of Southside Brisbane residents.

That as a result of this development noise pollution in the Cannon Hill/Morningside area will increase adversely affecting private residences, schools, churches, businesses, and sports.

That the approximate $100m allocated for the New Airport will be wasted as the proposed new runway will be subject to noise abatement restrictions from its first day of operation.

That Brisbane residents whose taxes will be used to transfer the noise problem from one area to another, seek a postponement of the initiation of any works until such time as proposals by Air Traffic Controllers and Air Pilots for a cross runway which will reduce noise and increase safety, can be considered.

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

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:

  1. That the Federal Government recognise land rights in the States, such as Queensland, in a similar manner to the recognition of land rights in the Northern Territory i.e. enact an Aboriginal Land Rights Act for Queensland;
  2. That the Federal Government support the abolition of the Aborigines Act (Queensland) 1971 and the Torres Strait Islanders Act (Queensland) 1971 and take such action as they may deem necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Queensland Discriminatory Laws Act 1975 and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 be enforced in so far as they relate to Aborigines and Islanders;
  3. That the Federal Government assume responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland under the powers given them by the Referendum of 1967. The State Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement Queensland should be abolished and Aboriginal and Island reserves in Queensland should have the choice to be self-governed with local government status.

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

Petition received.

Olympic Games

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

The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that in the interest of Amateur Sport we deplore the proposed boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games to be held in Moscow. We believe that such a boycott would be prejudicial to Amateur Sport not only in Australia but throughout the world.

Your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will take steps to protect the autonomy of Australian sportsmen and women and respect their right as citizens of our democratic society to compete in the Moscow Olympics should they wish.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed, the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index, by this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

  1. Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.
  2. Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 percent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

  3. Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 1 00 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrO’Keefe.

Petition received.

Taxation

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:

  1. Present income tax laws are unfair to single income families,
  2. All marriages should be recognized as partnerships by allowing partners to divide their joint income for tax purposes,
  3. The family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, should be an economic unit in tax laws,
  4. Children are Australia’s future and their individual care by a parent at home should not be discouraged by extra tax.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will

Reform income tax laws to allow the joint income of husband and wife to be equally divided between them for taxation purposes.

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

Petition received.

Citizens Band Radio

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Australian Citizens Band Radio Service was authorised by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on the First of July, 1977 and the Government of Australia has consistently refused to grant certain conditions Tor the users of that service, to the service’s detriment.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

The service known as the High Frequency Band of the CB Radio Service be allowed to continue past the date specified for it to cease, namely past 1 July 1 982.

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

Petition received.

Potato Industry

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Central Highlands region of Victoria, respectfully showeth:

That while we have signed contracts for season 1980 at last season’s price, we have done so knowing full well that we have little chance of expanding our operations or of achieving an equitable return for input at this price.

That we have been forced into a situation this season where we are commited to growing the variety ‘Kennebec’, known for its processing qualities and not for its acceptance upon the open market, and that it is for this reason that we have had to sign at a price which is far from adequate, particulary in light of the 8 per cent increase which has been paid to Tasmanian growers by the Tasmanian processors.

That McCain Australia Pty Limited states that the reason they are unable to offer a more equitable price for our produce is that they are currently placed at a serious competitive disadvantage to their Tasmanian competitors, due to the current Federal Government policy of total freight equalisation for Tasmania.

That, in effect, the Victorian potato industry is being gradually transferred to Tasmania, as a result of Federal Government policy.

Therefore your petitioners strongly request that the Federal Government gives immediate, serious attention to its policy of total freight equalisation for Tasmania so that the decline in market share experienced by Victoria can be remedied and in so doing, enable McCain Australia to pay an equitable contract price in years to come because we, as growers, cannot continue to absorb the current trend of rising production costs coupled with a static contract price which, if the situation is not remedied by the Federal Government, will lead to a continuing decline in the Victorian potato industry.

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

Petition received.

page 1577

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Hurford proceeding to give notice of a motion-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. He will have to rephrase his notice of motion so as to permit a proposition to be put.

Mr Hurford:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have already ruled.

page 1577

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1577

QUESTION

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Treasurer. The question concerns the figures on company income payable overseas, which were released by the Treasurer on Monday afternoon following the raising by the Opposition of a matter of public importance on foreign investment. The figures showed a substantial increase in the proportion of company income payable overseas in the last few years. Is the Treasurer in any way concerned by this rising trend or is he happy to see it continue? Further, in view of his statement that these figures enabled only a very rough approximation to be made of the level of foreign ownership in the private sector of the economy, will he re-establish the foreign participation section of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which collected accurate and comprehensive information on the degree of foreign ownership and control of Australia’s industry until he abolished it in 1978? If he will not re-establish this section, does this indicate that the Government does not consider it important to have accurate information on the degree of foreign ownership of our industries and resources?

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

– It is true, as indicated in my statement a few days ago and in the question of the honourable member for Gellibrand, that the level of foreign investment in Australia has increased a great deal in recent years. That is not surprising. That has come about not accidentally but as a deliberate result of government policy. We have created a situation in which it is more attractive not only for people from overseas to invest in this country but also for people in Australia to invest in the future of this country. If the honourable member for Gellibrand imagines that this Government will apologise in any way for making it more attractive for people overseas to invest in this country, he is very sadly mistaken. It is very much in the interests of this country that that occur. It is very much in the interests of future job opportunities in this country that we encourage the optimum amount of investment in the future development of this country from both domestic and overseas sources.

The honourable member has asked whether I will ask the Australian Statistician to reinstitute the survey which was discontinued as a result of a change in priorities by the Statistician several years ago. Looked at in isolation, just about any set of statistics could be claimed to have some intrinsic merit. It is terribly easy for people in this community to say, on the one hand, that governments ask too many questions of business operations and bother business operations with too many forms to nil in and, on the other, that in isolation such and such a survey or analysis is desirable. I do not believe that the circumstances which justified the decision being taken two or three years ago in that survey have changed. I do not propose to take steps to alter that decision.

page 1578

QUESTION

PROPOSED OLYMPIC GAMES BOYCOTT

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Home Affairs seen reports that the West German Minister for Defence considers that the European community would join a boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games? If so, can he confirm those reports? Can the Minister also confirm evidence that an effective boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games is likely to eventuate?

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I can confirm that I have seen one report. That was in the Canberra Times. But it was not a very full report. I think I should draw the attention of honourable members to what the Minister for Defence from West Germany said yesterday. In relation to the discussions about the Olympic Games, he said:

Our position is quite clear. We think that there should be a common West European decision of the nine countries of the Common Market in May. And we really hope that this will be a common position, a unanimous position. That means a position and a decision which can and will be accepted by all nine West European States. In any case, we are striving for such a solution.

He went on: we only can give advice to our national Olympic Committees. They are free. We are living in a free country. We cannot and we will not make any- we won’t bring any strength or any force upon them to react in a way we want to. But we will give them an advice. I am quite optimistic that they listen to their respective governments.

He continued:

  1. . though West Europe is strong in economic terms as well as in military terms, we know that our security depends upon the United States. And therefore, solidarity is for us not only a word but a reality and a necessity and therefore, the decision to be taken by the Europeans will be influenced by this necessity of solidarity with the United States. I am quite sure that there will be a unanimous decision. I am quite sure that there will be solidarity with the United States, but I think we need a debate about the Olympics -
Mr Uren:

-i take a point of order. The Minister answers questions without notice. This was a question on notice. Day after day this Minister makes lengthy replies to Dorothy Dix questions. If the Government wants to debate this matter it can make a statement after Question Time and the Opposition will debate the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. I call the Minister.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-Dr Apel continues:

I am quite sure that there will be solidarity with the United States, but I think we need a debate about the Olympics which does not create the wrong impression. It is up to the Soviet Government to make the Olympic Games possible. They have violated the Olympic spirit and a public debate by which we create the impression we are doing something wrong would be detrimental to our common cause.

Consistent with the attitude that I have adopted I have sought to bring to the attention of honourable members on both sides of the House those statements, events and facts which support the view that I have consistently stated, namely, that I believe there will be an effective boycott.

If those who take comfort from what Mr Reagan said in the United States read his statement carefully, they will find that he does support a boycott. He is simply saying what we are saying, that is, that if our Olympic Federation decides to send a team then so be it; let them go. In the light of the West German Minister’s statement may I remind the Leader of the Opposition of what he said in January. He said:

An effective boycott of the Moscow Olympics undoubtedly would be a major psychological weapon deployed against the Soviet Union.

He continued:

In particular an effective boycott would depend on the support of great European sporting nations such as France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and the Scandinavian nations.

I call on the Leader of the Opposition to show a bit of leadership. He should not follow the attitude displayed by State Premiers. If he wants to assume a role of national leadership -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister will draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr ELLICOTT:

- Mr Speaker, I am on my last sentence.

Mr SPEAKER:

– A question was asked and information sought. Question Time is not a time to give advice to the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the honourable gentleman to complete his answer.

Mr ELLICOTT:

- Mr Speaker, 1 have almost finished the sentence.

Mr Hayden:

– We can’t wait that long.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– It will not take that long. I am simply saying that if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to show some national leadership he should not -

Mr Morris:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. In the adjournment debate the time allotted is five minutes to each member. The Minister commenced his answer at 10.39. It is now 10.44, yet still he holds up the House and denies the opportunity to honourable members to ask questions. Mr Speaker, please ask him to finish. He should have the courage to stand up and debate the matter and not hide behind Question Time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. I ask the Minister to draw his answer to a conclusion.

Mr ELLICOTT:

- Mr Speaker, I am trying to, if I could only finish the sentence. What I said was that if the Leader of the Opposition -

Mr Hayden:

– I take a point of order. Mr Speaker, I take it that as you are allowing the pitch of this question you will allow me to respond to point out that we also spoke about equality of sacrifice and wealthy wool growers like the Prime Minister bearing some of the burden.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I do not mind the Leader of the Opposition pointing that out.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the Minister to ignore the point of order which I have overruled and to complete his answer.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– My colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, indicated yesterday that other people in the community, namely sorghum growers, as well as the athletes are bearing a burden. That needs to be borne in mind.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will answer the question asked of him. I have already given the Minister very considerable latitude. I ask him to complete his answer forthwith and not to respond to a point of order which I have already overruled.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was saying that if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to show national leadership, he should not follow the example of State Premiers and send out pollsters to find out what the public is thinking and then make statements in common with their findings. He should give a bit of leadership, go back to his statement in January and get behind an effective boycott.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the Minister to resume his seat.

page 1579

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT: SURVEY OF SCHOOL CHILDREN

Mr HUMPHREYS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs.

Is the Minister aware of a recent university survey of school children conducted in Queensland which showed that up to one-third of the 15 and 17 year old children questioned did not relate unemployment problems to a shortage of jobs? Is he also aware that most of the 192 children surveyed expressed a profound fear of the dolebludger stigma and would blame themselves for failing to find a job? Could the Minister inform the House what steps he will take to ensure that school children understand the causes of unemployment and cease to blame themselves for problems created by the economic policies of the Government?

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

– It is the economic policies of this Government which have brought Australia back from the brink of economic bankruptcy after the disastrous policies of the Whitlam Government in which the present Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer. It is this Government also which has the proud record of introducing a transition policy aimed at building very firm bridges between school and work. This program was introduced jointly by me and the then Minister for Education, Senator Carrick. It has been accepted by all the States and it is already being implemented.

I remind the honourable member that under the program the Commonwealth was prepared to commit $ 150m over five years and was asking the States to join it by themselves committing $ 100m over five years. We were prepared to lay our money on the table to the extent of $25m this calendar year without asking the States to contribute anything. That will be a very effective program which will operate in the schools through the present education authorities and through the teachers, so that the education system faces up to the economic realities that education must be related to the world of work. Teachers must relate their teaching and education philosophy to the world of work so that education is not simply an abstract matter but something which children know is useful to them when they move into a labour market. I venture to suggest to the honourable gentleman that as that transition policy gathers strength and momentum, the kinds of attitudes that were expressed by some of those children will be eradicated because that is one of the objectives of the transition policy.

page 1579

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT: PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr GILES:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. Is it a fact that this week Parliament House advertised for typists to work in the typist pools of this

House? Is it a fact that no applications were received for the positions? Is this an example of many such instances in the community?

Mr VINER:
LP

– It is an example of a situation in which many employers find themselves. Having advertised jobs, they find that either there are not the number of applicants necessary or that those who apply have not the competence or skill required by the employers. This is one of the great dilemmas of the employment situation. Undoubtedly and unfortunately there are many thousands of people who are unemployed and who cannot find work. But on the other hand, it is always perplexing to people in my position, as well as to employers and unions, that there are so many cases around Australia where employers have jobs available but cannot find the people to fill them.

page 1580

QUESTION

PROPOSED OLYMPIC GAMES BOYCOTT

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Prime Minister by referring to the public opposition of the Queensland Premier to an Olympic Games boycott and to the announcement by the Victorian Premier, Mr Hamer, that he will not use political pressure to gain support for such a boycott. I ask: Can the Prime Minister now name a State Premier who is prepared publicly to back him and unequivocally support a boycott? If not, will he call a conference of his State and Federal coalition allies in the various States and seek a bipartisan policy with them? Finally, if the Prime Minister finds himself in a minority on this issue, will he accept the will of the majority and the decision of the umpire and withdraw his Government’s support for such a boycott?

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

– There is a very significant difference between the attitude of the honourable gentleman and the attitude that this Government takes. We all know that the honourable gentleman was not even prepared to refer to the Soviet invasion, suppression and murdering in Afghanistan for what it is. He just wanted to call it, in polite terms, a presence. We know, of course, where that description comes from. The attitude that a State Premier might have is not really particularly relevant to the national obligations and responsibilities of the national Parliament and of this Government. We will pursue the course which we believe will best ensure the likelihood of a peaceful decade in the 1980s, and which will best help prevent the world once again going down the terrible path that it travelled in the latter part of the 1930s. We will therefore do what we can to support the efforts of the United States and of European countries, including Germany. I would commend to the honourable gentleman the answer given by my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs. He obviously was not listening when it was given. Maybe the Minister for Home Affairs would like to repeat that answer for his benefit.

page 1580

QUESTION

URANIUM SALES

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · NCP

– Is the Acting Minister for Trade and Resources aware of reports today that a Japanese firm has been given so-called sales rights in Japan for uranium from the proposed Pancontinental Mining Ltd mine at Jabiluka in the Northern Territory? Will the Minister tell the House whether these reports are accurate?

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

– I am aware of these reports. I am able to say that Pancontinental Mining Ltd does not have the approval of the Government to sell uranium from Jabiluka to Japan or to any other country. The Government’s policy is that uranium may be sold only from deposits for which development approval has been given. The mines to which approval has been given consist of Mary Kathleen, Ranger, Nabarlek and Yeelirrie. In addition, companies with development approval are required to have the approval of the Minister for Trade and Resources before making firm offers or entering into legal commitments relating to overseas sales. Development approval has not been given for the Jabiluka deposit. Consequently, Pancontinental Mining Ltd does not have approval to make any firm offers or to enter into any legal commitments for the export of uranium from the Jabiluka deposits.

page 1580

QUESTION

FUEL SUBSIDY IN COUNTRY AREAS

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs refers to the Press statement relating to increased subsidy for the freight component of fuel products sold in country areas. As the price differential for petrol products in country areas was well in excess of the 0.88c a litre figure prior to his announcement, can the Minister given an assurance to the House that country dwellers will, in fact, pay no more than 0.44c a litre more for petrol than is paid by their city counterparts, in contrast to the present situation where country dwellers pay much higher prices for fuel despite the operation of the freight subsidy scheme?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I thank the honourable member for his question. I know that this matter concerns a number of other members of this House because they have contacted me, notably the honourable member for Macarthur, who discussed it with me last night. The fact is that, as from yesterday, the Government has put in place arrangements to subsidise freight on petroleum products to country areas, which cover almost all country regions in Australia. No area now has a greater disadvantage than 0.44c per litre, or just under half a cent per litre.

The Government has no power to control retail prices. Within the limit of 0.44c, the scheme is aimed at achieving an equality in freight costs, that is to say, in the disadvantage suffered by country service stations. The point in all this which people buying petrol in the country should know, is that no disadvantage, beyond that small element, is being suffered by the service stations. Customers buying petrol should be alert to that situation and know that from 1 April, which was yesterday, the Commonwealth Government is subsidising the freight component, the freight cost, to an area and, therefore, that prices should be comparable within 0.44c per litre with metropolitan prices.

page 1581

QUESTION

PROPOSALS FOR NEUTRALISATION: AFGHANISTAN

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

-I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and refer to proposals for the neutralisation of Afghanistan. Is it correct that all successful neutralisations since World War II which have resulted in peace, for example, that of Austria, were achieved because those who proposed them wanted freedom and were able to bargain from strength? How do some of the proposals made in Australia differ essentially from, for example, the British attitude? What is the Government’s attitude, therefore, towards neutralisation proposals which accompany a ‘do nothing’ attitude towards Russia and hence guarantee bargaining for neutralisation from weakness and invite total failure for peace, as suggested by the Opposition?

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

-The first point I make in response to the honourable member is that this Government has endorsed the principle of a neutral non-aligned Afghanistan, despite the statements emanating from the Opposition that we have not. I discussed this matter with the British Foreign Secretary at the end of the very week in which he had put the proposition to the European Community. The Council of Foreign Ministers had been meeting in Rome, and at a Press conference on 22 February, after the discussion with Lord Carrington, I indicated our general support. We referred to it more specifically the following week in the ANZUS communique.

The point made by the honourable member regarding bargaining from strength and the nature of neutralisation proposals, and in particular his reference to Austrian neutrality I think is very accurate. He is correct. Apart from different political and historical factors, the neutralisation to which he referred was negotiated from strength. The European proposal must be negotiated from a position of strength. In putting forward a proposition, as Lord Carrington is, he is putting it forward from a position of strength because the British Government has strongly condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The contrast is with the Opposition, which advocates such a neutrality proposition, but not from any position of strength at all. It is starting from a point of weakness.

There is in the Opposition no firm or, indeed, united view on the question of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Indeed, the Opposition has not stated consistently any strength of condemnation at all. The Leader of the Opposition has put out statements which have been countermanded by statements within his own ranks. Of that there can be no doubt. The Prime Minister, I think, has referred to statements made in the Senate, in which people have alleged that the Soviet Union has greater regard for civil liberties, for example, than this country has. So it is clear that the Opposition has not examined the facts; it has not understood the details; it has not understood the complexities. Regrettably, when honourable members opposite allege that they are rethinking their policies, the reality is that normally they are only rearranging their prejudices.

Mr Bryant:

– I take a point of order. That is a total misrepresentation of the position. It is not relevant to the question. It is the creation of his own fragmented mind.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr PEACOCK:

-Inevitably the prospects for success of any proposal for the neutralisation of Afghanistan will depend on the willingness of the Soviet Union to adopt a genuine approach to such proposals. It will be induced to do so only if strength of argument and strength of purpose are used against it. The presence of 80,000 Soviet troops, 1,000 tanks and 2,000 armoured personnel carriers suggests that, despite the statements of the Leader of the Opposition, which exude an optimism that the Soviets will leave Afghanistan, no genuine approach for peace in Afghanistan is likely to emerge from the Kremlin in the immediate future.

page 1582

QUESTION

INDONESIAN TAKEOVER OF EAST TIMOR

Mr HAYDEN:

-The Minister for Foreign Affairs will recall making a statement rather unexpectedly on 20 January 1978 in which he announced the de facto recognition of the Indonesian takeover of East Timor and that he said that the grounds justifying that commitment were: Firstly, international efforts at intervention had failed; secondly, Indonesian troops had refused to leave and Indonesian administrative control had been progressively extended; and, thirdly, Indonesian control was effective and covered all major administrative centres of the territory. Can we conclude from the statement which he has just completed that he reached the conclusion that Australia’s negotiations in relation to the rights of East Timor and of the East Timorese had been undertaken from a position of weakness and that the acknowledgement of de facto recognition by the Government on that day was a surrender? More significantly, can we conclude on this record that, if the Russians still occupy Afghanistan after 26 months, this Government will concede surrender again?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-It is absolutely incorrect to draw such conclusions. The facts are -

Mr Morris:

– No consistency.

Mr PEACOCK:

– There is great consistency in our stance. Honourable members opposite know from when they sat in the Cabinet -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable members on the Opposition benches are making too much noise. The question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I allowed considerable latitude to the Leader of the Opposition. I ask honourable members on the Opposition benches to listen to the answer in silence.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I will run through the facts very quickly. The facts are that the honourable members opposite who sat in government under the Westminster system, whereby they were collectively responsible for the policies pursued, at no stage sought to protest internationally or bilaterally against the Government of Indonesia, although they well knew the events that were transpiring. When this Government came into office- despite the undertaking of no change in policy, I admit- we voted immediately against Indonesia in the United Nations, something you had not been prepared to do. Not only did we do that in the General Assembly, but also we sought a voice in the Security Council. At no stage had you been prepared to do this. At no stage had you been prepared to take it to the Trusteeship Council. Your record is abysmal. As a contrast between what you did in government and what we are doing in government, the only consistency is between what you did in government or did not do in government and what you are not doing now in opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I interrupt the Minister to ask him to address the Chair.

Mr PEACOCK:

– A very important point is at issue here. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition raised the question of political prisoners in Indonesia and sought to portray a genuine interest in this question.

Mr Hayden:

– In Malaysia and the Philippines.

Mr PEACOCK:

-I am sorry; yesterday he raised the question of Malaysia and the Philippines and showed a genuine interest, it would appear, in the question of political prisoners. I answered in general terms with regard to detainees and the like in the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. Since yesterday numerous statements have been brought to my attention. They relate also to the question now asked about the Indonesian takeover of East Timor.

Before the first visit to Indonesia and South East Asia by the Leader of the Opposition- his first visit after becoming Leader- he made a very strong play in the Press that he would be condemning the governments on this issue. But upon arrival in Jakarta, for example, his interest seemed to disappear. He was reported by Australian Associated Press as saying in Jakarta on 12 June that he would not seek to ‘lecture or hector’ the Indonesian representatives on question of human rights. When asked whether he was going to discuss the matters further the next day- this was following the Press conference- he was quoted as saying: ‘I have got some appointments in the morning, but I have private arrangements in the afternoon’. It appeared to me that the intensity of feeling that was exuded in Canberra suddenly disappeared when the Leader of the Opposition arrived in Jakarta. So, if we are talking about consistency and inconsistency, let us look at the facts and the performance of the gentleman himself.

page 1582

QUESTION

EL SALVADOR: ASSASSINATION OF ARCHIBISHOP ROMERO

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

-The Minister for Foreign Affairs will be aware that the Salvadorian delegation to an Organisation of American States meeting in Bolivia on 27 October 1979 expressed the determination of their country that ‘ respect for human rights become a reality in El Salvador and that El Salvador provide an example to the rest of the Americas’. Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs tell the Parliament of the work of the late Archbishop Romero on his courageous stand for human rights? Has the Government made any international response following his assassination? Does the Minister believe that expressions of international outrage have any effect on juntas like that governing El Salvador? Can this Parliament take any action which will effectively stop the needless slaughter of brave individuals who are prepared to stand up for civil and human rights in so many countries throughout the world?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

-On this issue, Mr Speaker, I am sure that the Opposition would join us- of that I would have absolutely no doubt- in strongly and absolutely deploring the violence which has reportedly claimed more than 700 lives in the past six months in El Salvador. The assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, not to be confused with President Carlos Humberto Romero, and the bombings and the shootings which disrupted his funeral are part of a continuing and regrettable pattern of violence and instability in El Salvador.

The civilian military government which replaced the repressive military regime in October 1979 has endeavoured to implement a program of political and economic reforms and has endeavoured, as I understand it, to hold early elections. However, the government has been frustrated by the extremist forces of both the Left and the Right in its attempts to accept compromise proposals aimed at ending political turmoil. Violence has escalated in recent weeks, almost to the point of civil war. Australia has no accredited representative in El Salvador. Our Ambassador in Mexico City, who has visiting and reporting responsibilities, is directed to -

Mr Cohen:

– And is overworked too. They haven’t got enough staff there to get down to places like that.

Mr PEACOCK:

– Well, they do get down to places like that. But they are overworked and I am very glad that the honourable member acknowledges the fact that so many of my officers are overworked. As a point of information, though, I would indicate that I have taken the responsibility for Cuba, for example, away from this particular post and have given it to the Jamaican post, both to ease the burden and because I thought it was more relevant, bearing in mind its location. The honourable member will know that the newly appointed High Commissioner to Jamaica formerly assisted the staff of a Foreign Minister in his Government.

Mr Martin:

– Get on with it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister will continue with his answer.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I was asked a genuine question and I was responding to it. I will conclude on the note on which I started. I believe that so far as the Parliament as distinct from the Government is concerned, I would be reasonably confident in saying that the Opposition could join the Government in deploring the violence that has claimed so many lives.

page 1583

QUESTION

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. What decisions of the Federal Court have been considered in the drafting of the proposed section 45E of the Trade Practices Act? Has the Government considered the recent Federal Court of Australia decision in the case of Nauru Local Government Council v. the Australian Shipping Officers Association in which it was decided that companies that did not comply with State business registration laws are not corporations within the meaning of section 45D? Has the Government further considered the case of Thompson Publications v. the Trade Practices Commission in which it was decided that section 45D does not bind the Commission? What amendments does the Government intend to make in the light of the decision in the case of Barney’s Blu-Crete Pty Ltd v. the Australian Workers Union in which it was proved that section 45 D worked against the interests of the small businessman- in that case, the owner-drivers?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Before I call the Minister, I should point out that the question borders on being out of order in that it asks the Minister to announce policy in the House at Question Time, it being well known that a Bill is about to be introduced. If the question is interpreted as asking whether the Minister should take into account these decisions when drafting the legislation, I will permit an answer to be given to that form of question.

Mr GARLAND:
LP

-Those who read the Australian Law Reports to which the honourable member refers have the advantage of me. I do undertake to have the detail of the matter which the honourable member has mentioned looked at when the Bill is being drafted.

page 1584

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES IN RURAL AREAS

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

-My question is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. The Minister will recall from his regular visits to my electorate that the provision of dependable telephone services is considered to be a first priority by many of my constituents. Is the Minister aware that many residents of south and southwest Queensland have for many years experienced either no telephone service or a service which is poor, being in many cases dependent upon privately erected lines of doubtful quality which are extremely costly to maintain? Can the Minister hold out any hope to these very deserving people that telephone services in these areas will improve?

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

-The honourable member for Maranoa is one of the most assiduous and hardworking members of this House. That is brought home to me every time I visit his electorate in Queensland.

Mr Cohen:

– What about me?

Mr STALEY:

-The honourable member is all right. The honourable member for Maranoa raises matters of great importance. The Government is dedicated to overcoming the communications disadvantages in rural and remote areas of Australia. Gone are the days when good communications in rural and remote areas are regarded as a luxury. They are properly regarded these days as a right and the Government’s actions are dedicated to ensuring that these rights are implemented. It is for this reason that Telecom Australia decided some time ago that $30m extra would be provided in this current year for an accelerated program for the conversion of manual exchanges to automatic exchanges. In future years additional funds will also be provided to ensure that by 1984-85 the great majority of outstanding applications for telephones will be met There will be very few people in Australia without an automatic service by that date.

In regard to the last few thousand homesteads which cannot be provided with telephone connections by normal means, the Government’s view is that the only way this can sensibly and efficiently be done is by satellite. I inform the House that discussions on the satellite project are proceeding well and according to schedule. At the moment the technical specifications are being finalised. I would expect that later this year a request for contractual proposals will be put to suppliers. In a number of ways the Government well understands the concerns of the honourable member and is acting to overcome those problems.

page 1584

QUESTION

MONITORING OF FOOD PRICES

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs will recall my repeated questions on the massive $47m food price rip-off. Has his attention been drawn to the survey conducted by the Consumer Advice Service of South Australia which found that supermarket prices on certain food items are 23 per cent higher than at the Central Market in South Australia? Is it a fact that his only response has been, firstly, to ask the industry to act honestly and, secondly, to ask the Prices Justification Tribunal to continue to monitor food prices? Can he give an assurance that both measures will block another rip-off this year? Will he give an assurance that the PJT and the Trade Practices Commission have sufficient funds, staff and powers to meet the demands made upon them? Finally, will he call a conference of small business and consumer associations throughout Australia for the purpose of formulating practical measures to ensure that housewives are not taken to the cleaners by manufacturers and chain stores again this year?

Mr GARLAND:
LP

– I have not yet seen the report to which the honourable member has referred. I will be obtaining a copy and having it examined. It has to be understood by the House that competition is a major factor in the food retailing industry. The fact of the matter is that supermarket products are in high demand. If supermarkets were not competitive with other retail outlets, then, of course, they would go out of business. I would have thought that it was obvious to everybody in the House that it would be necessary for all food retailers, including supermarkets, to mark up the prices of the food products that they receive from manufacturers and suppliers in order to stay in business. I remind the honourable member that the Government has indicated that it has a continuing concern in this area. I hope that he has read the report of the Prices Justification Tribunal.

Mr Jacobi:

– Yes, I have read it.

Mr GARLAND:

– The honourable member has indicated that he has read it. I just point out that there are elements in that report which are critical of the industry but there are also a number of other references which indicate that the activities of supermarkets are justified and acceptable. Comparisons are made in brief with the situation in comparable economies overseas which indicate a situation which is not particularly alarming. The Government has taken the action of having certain high turnover productshouse brand products- monitored. The PJT, through me, will be reporting its views on this matter to the Government. I summarise by saying that the Government has a concern. We are watching the position. It is very easy to exaggerate the situation and to take a view that everything that is happening is against the consumer. I do not believe that that is the situation. I believe that in most areas of Australia we have a highly competitive industry which is in general to the overall benefit of consumers in Australia.

page 1585

QUESTION

ARMY RESERVE

Mr YATES:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Defence, relates to the efficiency of the Army Reserve. Will the Minister confirm that the 2/15 Field Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery, and in particular the Dandenong Headquarters Battery, are good examples of the efficiency and skill of the Army Reserve, judging by the proficiency of all batteries at their annual camp on the open range at Puckapunyal last week? Will he now also confirm that, as Minister for Defence, he is taking steps to see that the Royal Australian Artillery is given new weapons and in particular the 155mm gun?

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

– Trials have been completed on the 155mm and 105mm guns. The replacement for the 5.5 inch gun, which is the 155mm gun, is scheduled for decision in the program between 1980 and 1985. 1 cannot say offhand which year but I will find out for the honourable gentleman. I must thank the honourable gentleman for his abiding interest in the activities of the Army Reserve. It is not only a very sympathetic interest but also an active one. I know that it is greatly valued by the units with which he is in touch.

page 1585

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF

Mr COHEN:

-Does the Minister for Science and the Environment regard the Great Barrier Reef as Australia’s greatest natural asset? If so, will Australia be nominating the Great Barrier Reef region for the World Heritage list this year? If not, why not?

Mr THOMSON:
Minister for Science and the Environment · LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

-The honourable member will be aware that Australia has nominated the Kakadu National Park. Consideration is being given to the nomination of the Great Barrier Reef for the World Heritage list this year.

page 1585

QUESTION

MARITIME INCIDENTS

Mr BAILLIEU:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Transport, concerns two incidents that took place recently off the Australian coast. The first incident occurred when an unidentified vessel passed within 1,000 metres of a Bass Strait oil rig. The second incident was when, allegedly, a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft took something like four hours to make contact with the duty watch on the bulk carrier Iron Somersby. Does the Minister agree that if this is the standard of seamanship and supervision that presently exists in respect of maritime activity around the Australian coast, the time has come for a thorough shake-up? Will the Minister see that this shake-up is implemented?

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

– I have discussed this matter with the honourable member for La Trobe. He expressed to me his concern about the circumstances of both incidents. I, too, am concerned about some aspects of these incidents. I am seeking a report and also seeking to see whether better measures could be applied to ensure that such circumstances do not eventuate again.

page 1585

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMISSION

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

-Pursuant to section 41 of the Australian National Railways Act 1917, 1 present the financial statements of the Australian National Railways Commission 1978-79.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Morris) adjourned.

page 1585

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HAYDEN:

-Yes, most grievously and painfully during Question Time. In the course of an answer to a question I directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) he asserted that there was a want of consistency and intensity on my part in the expression of concern on the issue of human rights in Indonesia when I visited that country in 1978. He quoted me, I believe correctly, when he said that I, in reply to a question, responded that I did not come to Indonesia to hector or lecture publicly the Indonesian Government, which in fact had been an attitude I had taken fairly consistently. The point of the questioning from the Opposition appears to have escaped the Minister. It is not only the fact that he is now hectoring and lecturing publicly but also that he is doing so selectively. The Opposition is pointing out the selectivity of that sort of hectoring and lecturing.

For the record, let me clarify the position. The Minister would be well aware- I am disappointed, given my personal regard for him, that he did not at least acknowledge this- because he would have had access to the record of conversations between myself and Dr Mochtar, the Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and between myself and President Suharto, conversations which took place in the presence of Mr Tom Critchley, an eminently successful representative of this country in Indonesia, that in both cases I did put the point of view of my party and expressed a very strong point of view about criticism in this country of Indonesia on two scores. The first of those scores arose because of political prisoners and the second because of the way in which Indonesia had militarily incorporated East Timor and events which transpired. Those things were put with consistency both in viewpoint and the intensity of expression. I was surprised to find not so much that the Indonesian officials regarded the Minister as charming and urbane but apparently quite ineffectual on this issue.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now proceeding beyond a personal explanation.

Mr HAYDEN:

- Mr Speaker, it was quite clear that the Minister is regarded as a muzzled mastiff and taken for granted on the issue of human rights in Indonesia and in the Association of South East Asian Nations countries generally.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker, the point that I wish to make is relevant. Can I make this other relevant point?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman has trespassed beyond a personal explanation. He has made the point of the misrepresentation and he has set it right. I ask him to resume his seat.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I wish the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be consistent and stand up for human rights in all parts of the world; not to posture like a poltroon.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr HAYDEN:

– I withdraw.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition just acted quite unacceptably to the forms of the House. I had asked him to resume his seat. He refused to do so and kept speaking. In the course of speaking he used offensive language which was unnecessary. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease such activity.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented and wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr BRYANT:

-During Question Time the Minister for Foreign Affairs pointed to this side of the House and nominated former members of the Labor Government. There are seven such members in the House and I am one of them. He accused us of being silent at the time of crisis in East Timor and Indonesia in such a way as to lay the blame on us for the Indonesians’ successful takeover of East Timor. The history is -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills will state where he has been misrepresented.

Mr BRYANT:

-The accusation is that I, as a member of the Cabinet, took no steps whatsoever to prevent the Indonesian takeover, and in fact connived at it. I was a Minister in the Government that was removed from office on 1 1 November. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Peacock, took over the next day as Minister for Foreign Affairs in the caretaker government. He held that post during the four weeks in which the operations were mounted and took place, finally culminating in military operations on 6 December. During the course of the run-up to that period we were assured by the then Foreign Minister, Senator the Honourable Don Willesee, that the Indonesians were not moving and that we were using all pressure possible upon them. At the time there was no opportunity for us to raise the matter with the United Nations or anywhere else. It was not relevant to do so until late in November. It was a total misrepresentation of the position and the Minister for Foreign Affairs knows that it was. I regard it as a personal accusation unworthy of him.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister wishes to make a personal explanation?

Mr PEACOCK:

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr PEACOCK:

-May I deal firstly with the personal explanation by the honourable memeber for Wills (Mr Bryant), a Minister in the previous Whitlam Government. He referred to the silence that I had mentioned in my answer. It is correct. If honourable members look at

Hansard they will see that the first time that the issue of East Timor and the possible invasion was raised was by me in this Parliament as a matter of public importance in the early pan of 1 975. No man sitting in this chamber who was a Minister in that Government joined me and my colleagues on that issue. That is on the record. No form of explanation later on or coddling of consciences publicly after the event can deny what is on the record at the beginning of 1975. Other questions were also placed on notice. I am sorry, but the explanation of the honourable member for Wills does not wash.

I turn now to the personal explanation of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). I am sorry to have to do this. Mr Speaker, you will recall that, firstly, the Leader of the Opposition said that he had raised the question of human rights and East Timor with the leaders of Indonesia in private discussion. He said that I had access to the transcripts. I do not peer over his shoulder. I do not want to look at the transcripts of the discussions between the Leader of the Opposition and others. I do look at the transcript of his Press conferences. I want to quote from one such transcript He was asked on 12 June 1978:

  1. . did you raise with any of the people with whom you spoke the question of the human rights problem?

The answer at page 5 of that transcript is:

No, I didn’t, because the time I had available with each of the Ministers with whom I spoke was limited.

He also said that he raised the question of East Timor and his concern about East Timor. At page 3 of the transcript, the Leader of the Opposition was asked a question which was not quite understood. Mr Hayden answered:

It’s the party’s attitude on East Timor.

The question was asked:

Did you give anybody you spoke to this morning any indication about what might happen when a Labor Government is returned?

This is in regard to East Timor. The answer was:

No. That wasn’t discussed. It wasn’t raised.

Mr Hayden was asked;

Neither the President, nor the Vice-President nor the Foreign Minister -

Mr Hayden answered:

That’s right.

Mr Speaker, I am not quoting from classified transcripts; I am quoting from transcripts which are freely available to ali. I suggest that what has been said in the personal explanation conflicts very sharply and markedly with what was said in Jakarta in June 1978.

Government members- Resign!

Mr Hayden:

– If I did, I would be highly qualified for a senior position in the Liberal Party.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr HAYDEN (Oxley-Leader of the Opposition) Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented. My recollection of events is quite clear. I do not know who provided the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) with the transcripts. However, I will dig out the record of discussions, which I expect we will have somewhere in my office, which took place in Indonesia between me and the Ministers I mentioned. The transcript, as I recall, was put together by Mr Critchley. Incidentally, I commend the Minister for not delving into those transcripts, although some people have done so in earlier years. That apart, I will take the action I have just outlined.

What I put forward is explicit and correct. I did raise the issues of prisoners and human rights in Indonesia. I did, in fact, seek to visit political prisoners in Indonesia and that was a matter for discussion at one Press conference. Arrangements fell down because of the variable undertakings we received. On one occasion we had an assurance from one Minister that we could carry out the visit and after lunch we were told by another Minister that the arrangements were terminated. No explanation was ever given. Nonetheless, the efforts were made. I will not take this matter further. I presume, Mr Speaker, that you will give me the opportunity later to put the record straight.

Government members- Oh!

Mr HAYDEN:

-I am not like members of the Liberal Party who like to fabricate evidence as they go along. It is like the house of dirty tricks. They doctor documents and then try to drop them around Parliament House.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Speaker, I wish to crave your indulgence to raise a matter in relation to the Standing Orders and to ask for your interpretation of how they should be applied. Very recently, when I was speaking in full flight in the adjournment debate, I was sat down for the first time in the 14 years that I have been a member of this place. I am excluding the occasional action by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier). I fell into argument with the Chair following a claim I made in the House that during the days of the Vietnam war- I do not want to be provocative now- not only were many members of the Australian Labor Party opposed to our involvement in the war but also they actively supported the enemy by virtue of parades and demonstrations. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) took objection to that statement under Standing Order 77. Since then I have had the Parliamentary Library put in a little time to establish for me that my generalisation that members of the Australian Labor Party were marching the streets chanting ‘Ho Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh’ was true. In fact, an article in the Melbourne Age of 9 May describes members of the Monash Labor Club as having done so and it states that Dr Cairns led that particular rally.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am not going to prolong -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Fadden will resume his seat. I ask honourable members on my left to cease interjecting. I cannot hear the point that is being made. Until I can hear the point that is being made I cannot allow the honourable member to proceed. I ask honourable members to allow me to hear the explanation. I call the honourable member for Fadden.

Mr Scholes:

– As long as he tells the truth; he is telling lies at the moment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio will withdraw that remark.

Mr Scholes:

– I withdraw but -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Scholes:

– But I wish to raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am listening to the honourable member for Fadden who is speaking with my indulgence. I will call the honourable member for Corio later.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Speaker, I wish to take a point of order on the matter of indulgence. The honourable member is in fact engaging in debate. He is using debating points. The alleged misrepresentation is not establishable as a fact. He has said that members of the Australian Labor Party were taking certain actions. He then mentioned the Monash Labor Club which he knows and everbody else knows is not affiliated with the Labor Party.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Corio will resume his seat. I ask him to remain silent.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will not hear the point of order until I have heard the honourable member for Fadden who has the floor.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I will curtail my remarks because I do not want to incite members of the Opposition. That is not the reason I am raising this matter. The point that I want to raise with you, Mr Speaker, as a matter of principle is this: If every time a member on either side of this Parliament alludes to some factual historical event and speaks the truth and a honourable member stands up and says, ‘I find that offensive’, do you hold that the honourable member making the statement has to withdraw regardless of the veracity of the statement made? That is the point on which I seek your guidance. I am not having a shot at the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. But there is no escaping the fact that members of the Labor Party did support the Vietcong with whom Australia was in a state of war.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to make a point of order.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Speaker, my point of order is very simply this: If you actually peruse the Hansard you will find that the Chair on that occasion asked the honourable member to resume his seat not by virtue of the content of what he was saying but by virtue of this continued defiance of” the Chair. I regret that the honourable member should choose, in presenting whatever case he wants to put to you, to omit that very important fact.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Speaker, I wish to speak on that point of order. If you peruse the Hansard you will find that the honourable member for Fadden made no reference to any member of the Parliamentary Labor Party. His references were to members of the Australian Labor Party and could have included persons completely divorced from this arena.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will deal with the matter raised by the honourable member for Fadden. The first point is this: From the knowledge I have of the matter, it seems that as the event occurred during the adjournment debate the Deputy Speaker chose to order the honourable member for Fadden to resume his seat rather than name him. I concur with that course of action. The discipline of the House has to be upheld. If it can be upheld by ordering a member to resume his seat rather than naming him, that is a proper course. It is a matter for the member himself to obey the Chair and if he carries it too far, of course, the Chair has to name him to uphold the discipline of the House. But that is a matter which I think is not as significant as the one raised by the honourable member- that is, whether or not an honourable member can ask for a statement which has been made to be withdrawn on the grounds that it is offensive. This is a constant problem.

Let me deal first with the question of truth or otherwise of the allegation. All honourable members must understand that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether the allegation made which is offensive is true or false. The Chair is not in a position to make that judgment. It is certainly not in a position to make that judgment when it arises instantaneously, as presumably it did the other night. Therefore, the Chair must proceed upon a line different from the determination of truth. If an honourable member says something which is offensive he can make that offensive remark about individual members, or some members, or all members. If he makes it about an individual member clearly, if it is unparliamentary, it must be withdrawn. The only way in which it can be said is on a positive motion. It would otherwise have to be withdrawn, if said about an individual member. If the offensive statement is about all members of the Parliament, then clearly it must be withdrawn because it encompasses all members of, for instance, the Labor Party or the Liberal Party. It would have to be withdrawn because it would include everybody, individually as well as honourable members collectively.

The difficulty arises when the remark is made about some honourable members. In that case it is very difficult to order it to be withdrawn unless an individual member says: ‘I find it offensive to me ‘. That translates it from a remark about some members into a remark about a particular member. If that particular member finds it offensive it ought to be withdrawn to maintain the comity of the House.

While I am speaking on this subject I must say that although this week in the Parliament has been noisy- I have felt that some honourable members have been a bit on edge and making more noise than I would like- nevertheless it has been a week remarkably free of unparliamentary language, at least at Question Time. I congratulate the House on not using unparliamentary language. I hope that that situation will continue in the coming weeks. I hope that I have covered the points raised by the honourable member for

Fadden. I will review what I have said and if I feel that I need add anything I will do so.

Mr HAYDEN (Oxley-Leader of the Opposition)- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr Hayden:

– Yes, I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

– In the interim, while the House has been diverted during this extended period of personal explanations, I have had the opportunity of extracting from the files in my office the records of discussions that took place with various Indonesian Government Ministers in Jakarta in June 1978, and in which of course, I was involved. Mr Critchley, the Australian Ambassador was present at those discussions and, in fact, was responsible for the records which are, of course, very brief summaries. I repeat that they were compiled not by me but by the Foreign Affairs representative, the Ambassador. I also point out that they are all stamped confidential, not by me but, again, by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I will respect that confidentiality and will quote extracts from the discussions. This is from the record of the discussion with Professor Mochtar, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It states:

After the introductory pleasantries, Mr Hayden asked the Minister about the situation in East Timor.

In fact, that is an enormously compressed report of the way in which the subject was introduced by me, but honourable members will note that my first major meeting resulted in my initiating immediately a discussion about the situation in East Timor. The record continues:

Mr Hayden:

asked whether Indonesia proposed to hold a plebiscite in East Timor.

Professor Mochtar responded at some length. The report continues:

Mr Hayden explained that many Australians were genuinely concerned about East Timor.

I went on then- it is shown in detail in the record- to relate the attitude of my Party, of which Professor Mochtar was well aware, and the fact that there was a great deal of strength in the community in support of that view. I go on now to the record of another conversation, with President Suharto.

Mr Yates:

– Table the record.

Mr HAYDEN:

-There is a copy here. I will hold it up if anyone is dubious about it. I suppose that I could arrange for some responsible and reliable representative of the Government to come and have a look at the record if he wished. It would be hard for the Government to appoint such a person, of course.

Mr Yates:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it not customary that if an honourable member wishes to quote from an official document he must either do so in full or table it; one or the other?

Mr SPEAKER:

-That is not correct.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I repeat that this is from the record prepared by Mr Critchley, of a conversation with President Suharto headed ‘Political detainees’. It states:

Mr Hayden said there was a very real interest in human rights in Australia. He received many letters on the subject and his own Party, the Labor Party, took a special interest in it. He hoped, therefore, that the President would understand why he would like to refer to the problem of the political detainees.

I then discussed the matter to a considerable extent in an interview with the President that extended for over an hour. I put my point of view directly and firmly and President Suharto put his point of view just as directly and firmly. I refer now to the record of a conversation with Lieutenant General Ali Murtopo headed, again by Mr Critchley, ‘Political prisoners ‘. It states:

Mr Hayden:

asked General Murtopo about the situation of political detainees in Indonesia.

Then followed considerable discussion, to which reference is made in this record of conversation, which is stamped confidential by the Department of Foreign Affairs. That conversation was one of some extent. I turn now to a record of a meeting with Mr Malik, in paragraph 2 in which he is recorded as responding to the general tenor of conversation as follows:

According to Mr Malik the crucial problem was the practical one of helping the East Timorese improve their way of life . . .

Later the record states:

The Vice President on his own initiative then turned to the problem of the political detainees, speaking at length about the difficulty of re-settling the thousands that were now being released.

That is to say, all of the issues that I said I raised directly and with a consistency, both of viewpoint and intensity, with the officers of the Government of Indonesia in Indonesia, were in fact raised. The record proves that beyond any doubt. That is all that I have to say on the matter.

Mr PEACOCK (Kooyong-Minister for Foreign Affairs)- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed with a personal explanation.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I made my position abundantly clear by saying that I would not look over the shoulder of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). I said that I was quoting from the transcript of Press conferences- in other words, what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) chose to tell the Australian people on the record. I think that I was entitled to draw conclusions from what he said at those Press conferences. I do not know the details of the discussions on East Timor with those to whom he refers here, but I do know that there is a substantial difference between discussing East Timor itself and discussing the Labor Party’s policy toward East Timor. There is a very real difference. That is what the Leader of the Opposition in his first personal explanation, said that he discussed. He said that he discussed his Party’s attitude to East Timor. Hansard will show that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think that the honourable gentleman should proceed to his personal explanation rather than debate the issue.

Mr PEACOCK:

-Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition alleges that I have twisted remarks contained in a transcript. In fact, what transpired concerning this issue appears at page 3 of the record of the Press conference of 12 June, as follows:

A: It ‘s re the party ‘s attitude on East Timor.

Q: Did you give anybody you spoke to this morning any indication about what might happen when a Labor Government is returned?

A: No. That wasn’t discussed. It wasn’t raised.

Q: Neither the President, nor the Vice President nor the Foreign Minister raised this?

A: That ‘slight

The Leader of the Opposition in his second personal explanation said that he discussed with, and gave his opinion and viewpoints on, the subject to General Ah Murtopo. He introduced it for the first time in the course of that explanation. I will read from the transcript of the Press conference which took place the next day, Tuesday, 13 June. This was the first time that the discussion with Ali Murtopo was mentioned publicly. The following appears:

Q: On East Timor did you express any opinions of your own to General Murtopo. On the East Timor situation?

A: No, no, I didn’t.

Q: Did you listen to his views?

A: Yes, he gave an extensive run-down on his, the Government’s views . . .

It must be patently clear that the matters were raised, but what is implied or indeed stated as having been given as the Opposition’s view, was not. There is a substantial difference at the very least, between what the Leader of the Opposition has said on the record and what he is claiming to have said in private conversations.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Yes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may make a personal explanation, but I wish him to remain in the posture of stating where he has been misrepresented and correct it, rather than debating the matter.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am determined to amaze you by doing exactly that. There are two substantial points -

Mr Peacock:

– It’s a bit like pick-a-box, isn’t it? Which one are you going to take.

Mr HAYDEN:

– In your case, it is scatterbox. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) has raised two points. Firstly, he said that I did not lay down what a Labor government would do after the next election. There are reasons for that. Time restricted me to detailed, intensive and consistent discussion about existing matters. I do not dispute that. I indicated our attitude on these matters. Secondly, in the case of Murtopo, there was an extensive discussion, with him making most of the running, in a meeting which lasted about 30 or 40 minutes. So I heard a great deal from him. However, the record shows without any doubt that the man who counts, President Suharto, with whom I had an hour, certainly heard from me in the clearest and most distinct terms. The record states:

Mr Hayden said there was a very real interest in human rights in Australia.

Then I went on to point to the evidence of that. I said that I hoped the President would understand why I referred to the matter of political detainees, as I did at some length. I said the same thing with regard to East Timor, and when speaking with Dr Mochtar. What came out of my discussions is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is a muzzled mastiff on the issue of human rights in South East Asia.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr HAYDEN:

– As much as he is absent, he is silent too.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have put this to the Leader of the Opposition already this morning, and now for the second time I draw his attention to it. If he continues to defy the Chair, as he has on two occasions, how can he expect other members of this House to obey the Chair? I ask him to give example of compliance, not of defiance.

Mr Neil:

-I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. So that the honourable members can understand this matter properly, will the Leader of the Opposition tell us whether he lied to the House or whether he lied to the people?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for St George will withdraw the implication in the point of order.

Mr Neil:

– Which one, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will withdraw.

Mr Neil:

– He must have lied to one or the other. Which one should I withdraw?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for St George.

Mr Neil:

-I will withdraw both imputations. Which one was true?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I give the honourable member for St George the last opportunity to withdraw unqualifiedly. If he fails to do so, I shall name him.

Mr Neil:

-I withdraw, Mr Speaker.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker, may I raise a point with you? I want your guidance on this. I quoted from official documents from Foreign Affairs Ambassador Critchley, with whom you are familiar. He is a man of high integrity, and I quoted from those documents. Effectively, what the honourable member for St George did was to call Mr Critchley a liar. I repudiate that. I resent it, and I challenge the Minister for Foreign Affairs to stand up and defend his officer.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has transgressed far beyond any reasonable level, even for the holder of that office, who is traditionally given considerable latitude.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr NEIL:

– Yes. Nothing I said could be taken as a reflection upon Mr Critchley. My allegations were clearly put in the alternative, and the matters were withdrawn. Having been withdrawn, the Leader of the Opposition should not have made such reprehensible allegations.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I uphold the point made by the honourable member for St George. I do not believe that the honourable member for St George made any implications whatsoever about the Ambassador. I feel that the Leader of the Opposition should not have taken the point he did.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmith)Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

– Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock). The misrepresentation comes about by the Minister saying that I as a Minister and the Labor Government did nothing to assist the people in East Timor.

Mr Bourchier:

– Tell us about Gough.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I will tell the honourable member about Gough. The question at the moment is that the Minister said that the matter was raised by him in a matter of public importance in February 1975. Mr Speaker, the record clearly shows that our Minister, who was Mr Morrison at that time, indicated that the Labor Party’s view was for self-determination for the people in East Timor. The record of that debate also shows that there had been discussions with the Foreign Minister of Portugal and with the Foreign Minister of Indonesia. The clear position announced by Mr Morrison in this Parliament was that we favoured the peaceful solution of the problems in East Timor. It is interesting to note that the Minister himself was in the Bali Beach Hotel in September 1975 and is on record as making certain statements -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is not entitled to debate the matter.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I want to make the point that it is significant that that conversation was leaked by the Indonesians, and it was leaked on the basis that the Labor Government would be made to fall later that year. We fell on 1 1 November 1975, and that was the day the Indonesian army moved in against East Timor. So if there is any mischief in this matter, we can have a look at the record of conversation -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is now debating the matter.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-No. I want to make this point -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may want to make the point -

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is very serious for a Minister here to make accusations against me about whether I did anything as a Minister. He had a chance to do something after he came back in September 1975, and he did nothing. We were removed from office in November 1975. But if the Indonesians knew in September that we were going to be removed, it certainly weakened our position of influence.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does it relate to Timor?

Mr UREN:

-Yes, it does.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I would like the honourable gentleman to state the misrepresentation, and then he may proceed to make a personal explanation.

Mr UREN:

– The misrepresentation is in regard to the fact that I was a Cabinet Minister in the Labor Government and that I failed to meet my responsibility at the time. I have made it clear before, but the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) continues to make the accusation that a Labor Cabinet failed to act on East Timor. The matter of East Timor was not raised in Cabinet. No information came before Cabinet to enable Ministers to take action. I have also said in explanation that no parliamentarians are without guilt in regard to East Timor. I carry that guilt no less and no more than the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I do not want to make accusations, but the fact is that Foreign Minister Malik, who is now Vice-President of Indonesia, has made accusations that this Minister for Foreign Affairs was aware of the action in East Timor and did not express any opposition to it. It is only a newspaper report. The Minister has repudiated the statement that he said that. I have accepted that proposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is debating the matter.

Mr UREN:

-I know that. All I am asking -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat, on his own confessions.

Mr UREN:

-Could I say that, in the interests of the East Timorese, members of this Parliament should stop slinging mud at one another and try to come together. In the interests of the East Timorese people, they should stop this use of gutter politics, and I refer particularly to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I must indicate to the House that there has been a terrible intrusion of politics into the Parliament this morning. When I permitted personal explanations I was aware that this was a major political issue. I could not silence it because when there is an issue of this kind it has got to bubble to the surface. It was not the proper medium for a debate. However, I think that it had to be permitted. I do not intend in the future to allow the same leniency for personal explanation on other issues.

page 1593

DEPARTMENT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Annual Report

Mr SPEAKER:

-For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for the year 1979. The report deals with the activities of the Department and refers to developments in the House itself. In presenting the 1978 report I stressed the need for parliamentary reform. The year 1979 saw some progress in this direction. Probably the most significant development was the establishment of Estimates committees. Whilst their appointment represented a substantial improvement on the old arrangement of debate in the Committee of the Whole, some problems arose from the late decision to proceed with the committees. I have circulated a number of suggestions for their improvement based on last year’s experience. I strongly urge their re-establishment this year. It would be tragic if these committees, which offer so much opportunity for closer scrutiny of departmental activities and expenditures, were allowed to go out of existence after one year’s operation.

I was disappointed that less use was made of legislation committees in 1979 than might have been the case. Some particularly valuable work was carried out by these committees during the autumn sittings in 1979 but not one Bill was referred to a legislation committee during the Budget sittings. These committees offer tremendous opportunities. They must not be allowed to atrophy.

During the year I distributed papers concerning the adoption of the Westminster convention of independence and continuity of the Speakership. Shortly I will be taking action to determine the level of support which the proposition enjoys among honourable members. This will enable me to decide what future action I should take in respect of the proposal.

Discussion papers on the development of a committee system and televising of proceedings of the House of Representatives were prepared and circulated by the Clerk during the year. A good deal of comment was received in response to these papers. The comment is welcomed. It is healthy for the institution. Both warrant debate in the House.

In November the Standing Orders Committee presented a report relating to the presentation of petitions and the method of raising matters of privilege. The House program has not yet been arranged so as to permit debate on these recommendations. This should be corrected forthwith. The Leader of the House (Mr Viner) has indicated to me that that will be done.

Some improvement was achieved during the year in the process of preparation of the parliamentary budget. Whilst the new arrangement does not go as far as I wish, it represents an interim point. I will continue to pursue this matter. I am pleased that it has progressed to the point that it has, a fact which I have expressed directly to the Leader of the House and to his colleague the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick).

Lack of suitable accommodation for honourable members’ staff and the staff of the parliamentary departments has been of continuing concern to the President and me. Negotiations continued with the Executive Government. As a result of that we are to have the Hotel Kurrajong as well as the area now occupied in the former Hotel Canberra as parliamentary buildings. I am able to say that the Executive has also indicated that if that does not represent sufficient space for our purposes, we may expand further within the Hotel Canberra. I am also glad to say that the Executive has indicated that it recognises that there will be necessary expense on refurbishing those places for occupation as parliamentary buildings and that we have been assured of cooperation in the provision of funds.

I must say, however, that the President and I have not abandoned the Parliament’s claim to West Block, which I have noted is to be refurbished and which, it is stated, will be occupied by the Public Service. I am aware that the Senate resolved at an earlier time that buildings such as West Block in the close vicinity of Parliament House should have prior usage by the Parliament. I also note that an Estimates committee of this House last year passed a resolution of a similar character, although I forget its exact terms, which was noted by the House. As the accommodation in West Block becomes available we will pursue the matter, but meanwhile it is very important that we should take up the accommodation made available, for which I express the appreciation of the President and me. I am sure that I express that appreciation on behalf not only of all honourable senators and honourable members but also of the staff of the departments and of honourable senators and honourable members. The report of the Department of the

House of Representatives contains a good deal of information. The first report was received very favourably by honourable members and by the broader community. I commend this second report to honourable members.

page 1594

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Viner) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday,15 April next, at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker shall fix an alternative day or hour of meeting, to be notified by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House.

page 1594

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent, firstly, Order of the Day No. 2, Government Business, Human Rights Commission Bill 1979, taking precedence of Order of the Day No. 1 , Grievance Debate, and a matter of public importance; and, secondly, at the conclusion of consideration of Order of the Day No. 2 debate on Order of the Day No. 1 proceeding for a period not exceeding 90 minutes.

page 1594

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration of Senate’s message.

House of Representatives amendments-

No. 1- Clause 3, page 2, at the end of the definition of “Covenant” add “, as that Covenant would have effect if it were amended-

by adding after the words ‘human person’ in the second recital the words ‘before as well as after birth ‘;

by inserting in paragraph 1 of Article 2 after the words ‘the rights’ the words ‘including those of the child before as well as after birth ‘;

by adding at the end of paragraph 1 of Article 2 the words ‘, including mental and physical handicap’; and

by insetting after the word ‘life’ (first occurring) in paragraph 1 of Article 6 the words ‘before as well as afterbirth’ “.

No. 2- Clause 3, page 2, at the end of the definition of “human rights” add “and includes human rights before birth”.

Senate’s message-

Amendments disagreed to.

Reasons of the Senate for Disagreeing to the Amendments of the House of Representatives-

That the amendments are irrelevant to the major tasks of the Commission and by their obscurity and uncertainty, will not advance the major purposes of the Bill.

That such proposals relating to the unborn should, if desired by the community, be achieved by substantive legislation and not by tacking such proposals to a Human Rights Commission Bill.

The amendments extending the definition of “human rights” to the unborn and extending the Covenant are not required for the proper operation of the Covenant in Australia and may cast doubts on the validity of the Bill insofar as it may depend on the ExternalAffairs power of the Commonwealth.

The imposition on the proposed Human Rights Commission of an obligation to recognise and necessarily to define human rights of the unborn is unnecessary to its proper purposes and is likely to lead to a distortion of its activities.

That the amendments, if adopted, are likely to cause the Commission to be inundated with complaints and enmeshed in controversy over abortion issues. The Commission’s reports to the Attorney-General and to the Parliament will in no way change the law, but will still heighten controversy and animosity in each House of the Parliament.

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

– On 5 March this year this House passed two amendments to the Human Rights Commission Bill, one moved by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) and the other by the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr). Each amendment was passed. In essence each of the amendments required the Human Rights Commission, in the performance of its functions, to act on the basis that human rights include rights before as well as after birth. These amendments were carried on a free vote; that is, both the Government and the Opposition freed all their members, including Government Ministers, to vote according to their consciences. Therefore, there has been a disagreement between the two Houses on a free vote. I am informed that this is without precedent. The Senate’s having rejected the amendments, they now come before this Committee on consideration of the message from the Senate, which was accompanied by reasons for the Senate ‘s action.

I will briefly explain to all honourable members what is now required by the Standing Orders. Under Standing Order 257, in a situation such as this, the House may:

Insist, or not insist, on its amendments; or make further amendments to the bill consequent upon the rejection of its amendments; or make new amendments as alternative to the amendments to which the Senate has disagreed; or order the bill to be laid aside.

The Government, in considering how this matter should now be handled, believes that a free vote should again be allowed; in other words, that the House should be given another opportunity to express its opinion on the two amendments made by it and disagreed to by the Senate. In order to facilitate this procedure- I emphasise that- for the expression of opinion by this House on a free vote, the House having previously passed these amendments, I now move:

That the Committee insists on its amendments disagreed to by the Senate.

The matter may now be debated by honourable members on both sides of the House and at its conclusion a free vote will be taken on that motion.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I want to indicate the Opposition’s view. We also have a free vote on this matter. I would like to put the matter in the context of what we said earlier in the course of the debate. We regard the Bill as being one that should apply to State laws and the laws of the Northern Territory and be enforceable. To that extent we opposed the Bill at the second reading stage. We also moved amendments in an endeavour to make the Human Rights Commission provisions applicable to State laws and to the Northern Territory law. That was a party position. The amendments indicated by the Leader of the House (Mr Viner)- those moved by the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) and the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon)opened up an area of conscience on which we have a free vote. The Senate has now dealt with those amendments and accordingly it will again be a case of a free vote in this House. I would expect that people would vote as they did before.

I just want to make this point: Perhaps later in the debate we can talk about what the Senate has said, but I think the fundamental issue we face in this Parliament is the fact that we have legislation which is ineffective because it is not enforceable on two grounds. It is not enforceable as against State law or Northern Territory law and it is not enforceable judicially. They were the fundamental weaknesses of this Bill.

Mr MARTYR:
Swan

– I support this House’s insistence on our amendments to the Human Rights Commission Bill for two basic reasons: First and most obvious is the fact that nothing basic has changed since 4 March when we sent forward our amendments to the Senate and secondly, the list of reasons given by the Senate for rejecting our amendments is surely the most inconsequential document that has ever been issued by the Senate. I commend those who would have nothing to do with such a document. I give one small example of why I think the Senate’s reasons are puerile. The Senate, in its reason No. 1, says that the amendments are irrelevant to the major tasks of the Commission, to the major purposes of the Bill. All I can say to that is that in clause 9, on pages 5 and 6 of the Bill, the main functions of the Commission are spelt out at length. Nowhere in those functions are any particular tasks or purposes of the Commission singled out as major or of particular or pre-eminent importance. Rather, they revolve around any human rights. So that is set out in clause 9. That is one example and I am sure that one or two others in this place will give other examples.

Speaking to my first point, I emphasise that nothing basic has changed since the night of 4 March- neither the logic of the arguments for recognising the rights of the human being before birth nor the logic of the Government in allowing a free conscience vote. One thing that does have some significance has occurred, however, and I would like honourable members to listen to this. The Government proposes legislation to protect whales and dolphins. Some of the strongest supporters of that legislation in another place are the same people who, in the record of the Senate debate, are strongly against giving basic rights to human beings before birth. I feel that there is something topsy-turvey about this. I am encouraged by the strong support for this proposed legislation to think that they may believe that human beings may at least be entitled to the same sort of rights as they want to extend to whales and dolphins. I am encouraged by the support they give to whales and dolphins to think that they may extend it to human beings. That is one of the reasons why I want this Bill sent back to the Senate. We should insist on it because we will be giving the Senate the chance to be completely logical and not to be foolish. As I said, it is a topsy-turvey world when terms of imprisonment can be demanded for those who outrage whales but nothing is done to protect the unborn human beings and the mentally and physically handicapped.

Some in this House have suggested to me that the Human Rights Commission would take care of and protect the unborn and the mentally and physically handicapped on the application of those outside this Parliament who fight for their rights. I would hope that this is the case and I know that all honourable members hope that this is the case. But if we fail in our duty today and cave into that place over there, I think we will find that the Human Rights Commission will be guided by what we have done, lt will take it as precedent that we have caved in. It will take it as precedent that the Senate has rejected what we sent to it and the Commission will apply its judgments accordingly. So I would like honourable members to consider that point. It would mean, I believe, that there would be no protection for the unborn in this country in the future and certainly only scant protection for the mentally and physically handicapped.

As I said, neither the logic nor the necessity and the absolute correctness of what this House did on the night of 4 March has changed. I hope that everyone who did what he thought was right on that occasion will do it again. The Senate must be made, for its own good and for the good of the people of this country, to face up to its responsibilities to all the people of this country, not just those who have big voices and can strut and shout and protest at wrongs. It has to be responsible for everybody and we have to make the Senate face that responsibility. I believe that this House has fulfilled its responsibility to all those who are living, to all those who are mentally handicapped and to all those in the womb. Let the Senate do the same.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I support the proposition that the House should insist on its amendments. I believe there is no doubt that there is humanity, there is a form of life before birth. Doubtless there is a difference of view concerning the importance of that life at the various stages after conception or implantation before birth. Nevertheless, surely every thinking person agrees that there is a form of human life from the point the foetus is viable. If we are dinkum about human rights then those rights should at least apply from the time when that foetus is viable. In other words, rights should apply before birth, and that is what our amendments state. If that is so, then the Human Rights Commission should be charged with monitoring and seeking to safeguard those rights. It should be charged with doing so in the legislation, not by any resolution outside any legislation.

I find the Senate’s reasons totally lacking in principle, expedient and thus unacceptable. Firstly, honourable senators suggest that the monitoring of human rights before birth is irrelevant to the main purpose of this Bill. My reaction to that is: So what? The monitoring itself is important. It is in the hands of the Government to give the Commission extra resources if they be required. Secondly, honourable senators suggest that the proposals relating to the unborn can be achieved by other purposes. My reaction to that also is: So what? That applies to everything the Commission will do. It could be done in other ways. But the point is that we are setting up this Commission, this is a proper task for the Commission and the Commission should apply itself to this task. Thirdly, the senators are drawing a very long bow when they suggest that extending the definition of human rights to the unborn may cast doubts on the validity of the Bill insofar as it may depend on the external affairs power. I believe that is something we could and should correct in this Parliament if it is so, but it is not an issue.

The fourth reason for the Senate’s rejecting this House’s amendments is merely, I believe, a rehash of the first reason- putting that first reason in different words to dress up a poor argument. The senators say that insisting on these amendments will lead to a distortion of the activities of the Commission. I believe that is nonsense. Either there is humanity or there is not. If there is humanity, and I have stated that I believe there is humanity and any thinking person should believe that there is humanity at least from the point that the foetus is viable, then that humanity should have human rights and those human rights should apply in such a way that the Commission should be involved. The next thing we will hear is that too many cases concerning very old people are coming before the Commission and that therefore very old people should be excluded from the concern and monitoring of the Commission. Of course that is extraordinary and should be rejected. I repeat: If extra resources are needed for the Commission, then so be it. Let the Government provide those extra resources.

The fifth and last reason given by the Senate for rejecting this House’s amendments is that the Commission is likely to be inundated with complaints and enmeshed in controversy over abortion issues. That is just a piece of expediency. It is no reason for rejecting the amendments put forward by this House. Either it is correct that the civil rights of humans should be monitored or it is not correct. If it is correct, the Government, I repeat, should provide for the job to be done properly, should provide the resources for the Commission to do that job.

In conclusion, I am bound to point out, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has pointed out, that this Commission regrettably has been prevented by the Government from applying itself to human rights issues in the States. I wish that that were not so. I wish the Commission could be the catalyst for causing improved legislation in the States on the abortion issue and on many other issues. Of course the Government has prevented that from being so. For all these reasons I think that this House must insist on its amendments.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I will vote against the motion which has been moved. I have given very close consideration to the Standing Order under which we are operating. I think that the motion might have been presented in a better way, but I accept the way in which the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) has decided to present it. First, I wish to refer to what was said by the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr). I have indicated clearly in the past that I do not think he really understands what is contained in the Human Rights Commission Bill and in the annexure to the Bill. Let me deal with the question relating to basic human rights and whether they occur before or after birth. What the honourable member forgets is that the law that has applied for over 200 years in the United Kingdom- the common law- was adopted in two cases in Australia. One was the Menhennitt decision in Victoria and the other was a decision of a Judge of the District Court in New South Wales.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Judge Levine.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I will let that go for the moment. I do not have enough time to argue. Those decisions were intended to protect human rights and above all to emphasise to the woman herself what problems she could endure during the time of her pregnancy. In that respect the law is quite clear and beyond any doubt. It has been accepted by the parliaments of Victoria and New South Wales and previously by the Commonwealth. It has been accepted that that law is proper and right and should be accepted. What does the law say? It says that the health of the woman must be taken into consideration. That consideration concerns not only her physical health but also her mental and psychological health.

Mr Birney:

– As to whether there is a criminal offence.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yes, perhaps that is a better piece of advice. It was a criminal case on which these decisions were raised. It was decided then that provided certain conditions were observed there was no criminal offence involved. It is that which I defend. I defend it because not enough consideration is given to the problems that a woman can endure during the process from conception to delivery. During that time she can go through unbelievable pain and agony and unbelievable responsibilities. If a judge of a court- better still, a judge of the Supreme Court- can hold that under the circumstances there is no criminal offence based upon the experience of medical men that there should be an abortion, I think that view ought to be accepted and I will maintain that stand. I might say this: When I was the Prime Minister and had to face an election in 1972 I put all these points to the religious authorities of New South Wales. They accepted my view and did not contest it during that election campaign.

Let me deal with the problems which I do not think could have been understood by the honourable gentleman who moved the original amendment. Technically, we have here a Bill to which is annexed the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights. This is a covenant of the United Nations to which we agree. The honourable member wants to amend the recitals to the Covenant. He does not try to amend any proposed law contained in the Bill, which he cannot do, anyway. I cannot think of anything more irrational, more contrary to usual and international practices and more contrary to common sense and good reason. Therefore, I agree with one portion of the reasons that were given by the Senate forks rejection of the amendments.

If ever we want to consider a matter as important as this, it has to be done by a substantive motion in the same way as was done by the Lusher motion which was defeated. I must deal very emphatically also with the amendment that became known as the Simon amendment. Even the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon), who gave real consideration to this question, had to admit that once the main motion was beaten his motion became totally irrelevant.

What we are being urged to vote for in technical, legal and political terms is totally irrational. How peculiar it is that this amendment has been moved to the annexure to the Bill, the International Covenant. Fifty-three nations have now agreed to it. They have not tried to follow the practices we have tried to follow. The next point that I want to make is that in any event proposed section 5 of the Act itself would apply only in the Australian Capital Territory. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has pointed out, it cannot relate to any other part of Australia. I know it has been argued by one member that I am wrong, but it is stated there in the legislation and it cannot be contravened. In his second reading speech on the Bill, the Leader of the House pointed out without any doubt that this is an exercise in the type of Federal system that this Government, the Fraser Government, wants in Australia; therefore, we ought to be able to accept it exactly as it is. The amendment will have no influence whatsoever.

I now turn to some of the factors that I regard as important. If the Bill were to relate only to Canberra, what dreadful positions could arise. It would mean that every single woman suffering the indignity that she has to suffer in this situation- the pain and punishment- would have to go to some other State and find medical approval. Therefore, there would be no usefulness in any sense in reality. There would be no commonsense in trying to do this. If the Bill were to apply to the States we would be back to a position that the United Kingdom was in over 200 years ago of abortions being conducted not under severe and strict medical conditions, but in backyards, back parlours or somewhere else under insanitary and unpleasant conditions. That must have a devastating effect on the mentalities and the psychologies of the women who have to undergo those unfortunate operations.

Under no circumstances should we give an undefined power or any power that is not precisely described in the law in which it comes into operation. If we were to give any such power at all to the Human Rights Commission that power would be under constant examination publicly every time an abortion had been committed even with medical advice. We have to decide whether it is right or wrong- not in this case as to whether it is contrary to criminal law- and we would have to rely on the varying judgments of so many people within the Commission which can vary from time to time. Heavens above, have we not learned in recent weeks what can happen with the various cases that go through the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? A different interpretation of the cases can be given any day. We have had some of the most damaging controversies and damage has been caused to the economy and society.

In abortion cases there are frightening consequences which could occur to women. Under no circumstances throughout the Covenant dealing with the question of human rights do we find that it refers to life or what is within the embryo itself. It deals with people who are alive, who are active and who are operating in the social life of this country.

For that reason I feel as strongly as I ever have. I emphasise that in 1972 when I explained my position to the churches they accepted my explanation. This is not a substantive motion but is an addition, a tacking on to a Bill. I doubt whether even my friend who has just left the chamber would ever say that tackings to Bills are always to be resisted because we never have the right opportunity to explain what they are all about. I am more strongly than ever of the conviction that the decision we made in 1972 was right. Therefore I am also of the opinion that we should accept what has been sent to us by the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think if this motion is to rise or fall on the argument of the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) then the Parliament does not really have too much to consider. I take a point raised by the right honourable member for Lowe in relation to where the Human Rights Commission Bill does not go far enough. He raised a question which I raised in an earlier debate in this Parliament about the provisions of this Bill applying to the States. I believe that if the Parliament had been sincere enough to pass the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) it would have done a very good job in relation to this Bill. A number of honourable members on the Government side are sitting back complacently, saying: We did a great thing here. We supported this and supported that’. But I point out to the House that the figures which were made available by the Department of Health in 1978, in relation to the number of abortions conducted, and which were the latest such statistics made available by the Department, showed that 44,600 abortions were conducted in Australia in 1978. Nearly half of those abortions- 19,300- were conducted in New South Wales and 18,700 were conducted in Victoria.

I put it to the Committee that only by extending the provisions of this Bill to the States can one go any way towards attempting to stem the number of abortions which are conducted in Australia. I put it to all honourable members on the Government side that they were less than sincere in not supporting that proposal when it was put forward prior to the Martyr or Simon amendments being moved. The right honourable member for Lowe stated that the amendment before the Committee is a very imprecise proposal that just tacks something on to a Bill. To my mind all amendments to Bills either add to or subtract from a Bill. One cannot suggest that because this amendment adds to a Bill it is a messy way of achieving an objective. I feel that the argument put forward by those who say that there should be a specific resolution of the House on this matter are really trying to cover up the whole question. They know that only by making a substantive change to a Bill before the Committee can any of the progressive changes that are sought by both the Simon and Martyr amendments be achieved. I put it to the Committee that we should reject the reasons that the Senate has given for disagreeing with the amendments passed by the House of Representatives for the reasons put forward by both the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford ).

I would also suggest to the Committee that we should be ensuring that if the Commission does find that impediments are put in the way of its operation because of a number of claims by competing groups, the Government should endeavour to provide as much staff and assistance as is necessary for the Commission to operate effectively. I am pleased to see that the Minister representing the Attorney-General is in the chamber this afternoon. I would hope that he would place before the Parliament, if necessary, any amending legislation which would necessitate a change in the operation of the Commission so that it could function effectively. Whilst in most of the debates on this Bill in this chamber we have centred our arguments on whether there should be an amendment about life before or after birth, a number of other very important areas of operation of this Human Rights Commission Bill will also need to be given quite an amount of consideration.

I shall not take up the time of the Committee much longer except to say that I would commend the amended Bill that we sent to the Senate. I think it should go back to the Senate with our insistence that it be passed. I also say, I suppose more in sorrow than in despair, that honourable members on the Government side should have shown a little more sincerity in the initial Committee stage of the debate on this Bill and supported the amendment stating that the Bill should apply to the States. Only when that is done will this Commonwealth be able to have any real effect on the rights of people before or after birth.

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I wish to briefly put to the House one or two points on this matter. I do not believe that the substantive arguments should be re-run at this time. The question is whether or not the Committee should insist on its amendments. I believe that where a conscience vote is concerned, the consciences of members ought not to have changed on such a substantial matter and that therefore the Committee should insist on its amendments. The Government has been scrupulous in adhering to the Standing Orders in bringing the matter before the Committee in this form. After the Standing Orders have been properly applied the matter will go back to the Senate, if we so insist, but another procedure is open to the House of Representatives if it does not so insist. In the case of insisting, the Constitution covers the matter. I do not believe that we should be afraid to recognise that there are constitutional provisions in the event of the House insisting. Let us hope that if the House insists the Senate will properly and carefully consider the position of” the House.

Although there is a conflict of corporate consciousness between the two Houses of the Parliament, a much larger number of members in the House of Representatives have exercised their consciences on this matter than in the Senate. I believe that the Government’s obligation to the electorate, as expressed in the policy speech, that there should be a Human Rights Commission, has zen fulfilled by bringing into the Houses of Parliament a Bill which provides for a human rights commission. If, on a matter of conscience, there is a deadlock between the Houses and the matter cannot pass through the Parliament the Government has nonetheless discharged its obligation to the community. For those reasons I will support the motion that the House insist on its amendments.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) ( 12.38)-! support the motion that the House of Representatives insist on its amendments to the Human Rights Commission Bill. I support the views expressed by the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) that it is not necessary once again to put forward a substantive argument. I should like to comment on the fact that both the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) have said that this is to be a free vote, a conscience vote. I have no doubt that the matters raised in this Bill are matters of conscience. It seems to me, and I have no doubt to other honourable members, that the amendments passed by the House on the last occasion on which it debated the Bill were based on a firm, lasting and deep-rooted belief in the rights of the unborn. I believe that when honourable members voted on the last occasion they were conscious of this deep-rooted and lasting belief. Before the vote was taken honourable members had the opportunity not only to consider fully the issues raised by other honourable members but also to put forward their own views to the chamber after considering their own beliefs in the sacredness of life and the rights of the unborn. All these considerations were weighed by a well-informed, free, conscience vote by honourable members. The Simon amendment was carried by an overriding majority. I think that when free thinking and honest men reach a decision on such moral issues after going through such a soul-searching procedure they would not want to change their views within a few days unless some outstanding evidence or consideration has been put forward. If one reads the debate that took place in the Senate, I do not believe that one will find these considerations mentioned by the honourable senators. On page 879 of the

Senate Hansard the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) said:

The amendments will not require the Commission to take the view that life begins at conception. However, it will be an important indicator to the Commission that, in the view of both Houses of Parliament, the unborn child is to be accorded appropriate rights.

Further on, an honourable senator pointed out that the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights of the Child of 1959 has this to say: . . where a child by reason of his physical and mental immaturity needs special safeguards and care including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth.

If that is what the United Nations charter on human rights says, I believe that that protection should be included in the Human Rights Commission Bill. I remind honourable members that nothing has come forward to change the very considered and conscientious views that were expressed on the last occasion. I ask honourable members to stand solid and vote for the amendments that were passed on the last occasion.

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

– I did not speak on the Human Rights Commission Bill on the last occasion it was before this chamber, but I would like to say a few words about it on this occasion. First of all, may I say to those who regard this as a matter of conscience that I do not agree with them. They perpetually say that this is a matter of conscience. Quite apart from the general argument that, in this chamber, every matter should be a matter of conscience, I do not draw that distinction. I will be voting against this motion in the same spirit as I voted before, basically because I believe that the function of this chamber is to pass rational legislation. Try as I can, I cannot regard this legislation- basically, no doubt, for many of the reasons given by the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon)- as rational legislation.

The Government members who are voting in favour of it are very strongly in favour of what is called a federalism policy. The Bill has been drawn against the background of that federalism policy. I introduced a similar Bill in May 1977 when I was Attorney-General. I drew it against the background of our federalism policy. The reason for that is that I was then to have some discussions with the Attorneys-General of the States and try to get them to join in a reasonable, broadly based Human Rights Commission. The Attorneys-General of the States, in their wisdom, have decided that they will not participate at this stage in this Bill so that we can have a broadly based Human Rights Commission throughout the Commonwealth. In my view, that is very unfortunate. But the fact is that the Government, against the background of its federalism policy, has decided to draw the Bill accordingly in the more limited form. Had it been drawn in its wider form, I would have grave doubts about its constitutionality. I expressed that in relation to the Human Rights Bill introduced by a former Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, in 1973 or 1974 and I would express it again in relation to this Bill if it were drawn in the wider form sought by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) on behalf of the Opposition. In other words, I rather think that this Bill goes to the extent of federal constitutional power, and that needs to be understood.

Another aspect of the matter is that the question of the rights of the unborn child is basically a question for State and Territory law. It is not a matter for the national Parliament. Honourable members may think that that is unfortunate, but the fact is that it is a matter for State and Territory law. The cliche ‘the rights of the unborn child’- it has become a cliche- raises great emotional attitudes in people. May I say at the outset that in March of last year I addressed this Parliament on the Lusher motion and I indicated my attitude. My attitude is not vastly different from that of those on this side of the chamber; that is to say, I would accept basically what has been called the Menhennitt or Levine ruling. In that respect I would regard myself as having as much conscience, if one would call it conscience, as those who embrace that issue.

Notwithstanding that, I have to say insofar as the rights of the unborn child are concerned that, as a concept, it is a political, an emotional or perhaps even a religious statement. It is not a statement of law because it does not embody the content of law. Every one of us knows that if we had to embody in legislation the rights of the unborn child, all sorts of considerations would have to go in, including those that come out of the Levine ruling and those that come out of the Menhennitt ruling. We would then have a complex piece of legislation. The whole point of the abortion debate is that the people who are interested in the subject- I may be one of them- will not face up to the fact that the politicians whom they have to approach are the State politicians. It is in the State parliaments of this land that the abortion laws will be changed. That is where the issue has to be faced up to. That is where the rights of the unborn child have to be faced up to. It is absolute nonsense to talk about amending an international covenant by simply putting in a few words, such as the Simon amendment suggests.

That honourable gentleman escaped down the hatch as soon as he moved the amendment because he realised the unwisdom of his amendment when it first came before the House. He realised that because it is legislative nonsense.

If we go through the various articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights we will find that it does not talk about unborn people. It talks about bom people- bora men and women. It is common sense that we cannot get the Covenant and suddenly amend it by including a few words about before binh as well as after birth and hope to change the whole concept of the Covenant. It cannot be done. Even if it could be done legally it could not be done linguistically or as a matter of interpretation. It just does not make sense.

I will be voting against the motion. I believe the Senate has given some reasons for disagreeing to the amendments. Some of those reasons commended themselves to me when I voted before. I am committed, as the Government is com.mitteed, to human rights legislation. I am committed to as much human rights legislation to establish a Human Rights Commission as this Parliament can properly enact. The Human Rights Commission Bill is such a Bill. It goes as far as I believe this Parliament can go, both consistent with our Constitution and consistent with our federalism policy. It is my fear that if we pass this motion we will never see a Human Rights Commission emerge. Some people in this Parliament would be glad not to see it emerge. That is another reason why I will vote against this motion.

I believe that the time has come when this country should have a Human Rights Commission and when the rights of minorities can be brought to the attention of some person or some body. I commend that thought to those who, in their own minds, think that they want a Human Rights Commission but who, on the other side of the coin, think that they have some attachment to a philosophy about the rights of the unborn child. There is another place in which to prosecute that but it is not this place nor is it this Bill. I suggest to honourable members that they vote against this motion.

Mr GOODLUCK:
Franklin

-Whilst some of the things that the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) said a few minutes ago were possibly relevant- he did mention the fact that it was legislative nonsense- the fact is that we are reaffirming a decision. When one talks of conscience- the Minister said that this House should be governed by conscience- one could disagree with that. On this occasion it is a free vote. We are voting on our conscience. When we vote on conscience we do something that we believe is right and that we should do and we should not change our minds. For that specific reason I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) who initiated this amendment He has been very courageous and has followed the amendment through. For that reason I support the amendment. I believe that every other honourable member who voted for it previously should support it.

I have listened very intently to what was said in the Senate on the matter of conscience. I believe that there is a great distinction between the Senate and the House of Representatives. Honourable members in this place are the representatives of the people. Sometimes the Senate gets involved in things that are quite irrelevant It gets involved in the trendy sorts of things rather than the basics of what we are talking about in this amendment to the Human Rights Commission Bill. For that reason honourable members should stand firm. I hope that everybody who voted for the amendment previously will vote for it again.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

– I would like to commend the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) on the speech which he just made to this Committee. It was a commendable summary of the real issues about which we should be thinking on this particular vote, whether we insist on our amendments. I would like to elaborate on the comment that the Minister made that he would question whether this is a conscience vote. There will be some people in this place who will vote because pressure had been applied to them by an individual or a group. There will be some people who will vote because it is politically expedient to take a line on a particular issue. There will be some people who will vote because they want to defeat the Human Rights Commission Bill and the establishment of that Commission. In the course of all that there will be many people who really will want to vote because they believe it is necessary to make a statement in relation to life in being and whether it starts from conception.

The real point of the whole issue that we now have to face is whether we want a Human Rights Commission established. In this vote we face the possibility that a Commission will not be established. If we project the course of action which has to take place after this chamber has its debate we face a situation where the Senate may reject again the amendment. We may have a situation again where the Bill will not be acceptable to both Houses. That is a very real possibility. Honourable members must consider that possibility. All those people who claim to be in favour of the establishment of a Human Rights Commission must rethink their position in that light. They will think that it is a new matter which they must consider now which was not before the House at the time because the Senate had not considered the amendment which was passed; the Simon amendment.

I will go back very briefly to what the debate ought to be about. We are talking about a definition of human rights. We are not debating whether the Committee ought to be in favour of abortion. We are not debating whether one is pro-life or against life. I would be surprised if anybody in this chamber was against life in the way in which it has been depicted by the Right to Life movement. I want to record my abhorrence at the way in which my personal views are misrepresented by people outside this chamber and at the way in which any comment that I make is totally and deliberately misinterpreted. Mr Chairman, that is the negative aspect and I wanted only to record it. If we are talking about this Bill and about human rights we refer, by the definition clause, to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In that sense it is a very general definition of a human right. If it was the view of the Commissioner, who had an application or a complaint put to him, that a termination of pregnancy was a breach of human rights that he should examine, he could do that under clause 9 of the Bill as it is presently drawn. There is absolutely nothing to stop him from carrying out that investigation. What the Commissioner must examine and determine is whether there is a life in being which draws attention to this particular provision in the Bill.

If I am not correct in that assertion I will make another point. It must be very clear from the votes which have been taken in this place, and from the way in which the community at large reacts to this particular debate, that there is a difference of views whether ‘life’ begins from conception. It must be very clear also to everybody in this place that there is no unanimity that life does begin at conception. If that is the case I consider that it is totally wrong for a parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to determine what it considers and to enforce its view on a community which has not yet reached the stage where it will accept that particular view. If we look at life in being which is capable of protection under the Human Rights Commission Bill then certainly we must recognise that there are many rights which exist apart from the ones before birth which we are determining. Finally, I simply say that we must reject the amendment. We will totally destroy this Bill if we do not. For those people who are in favour of a Human Rights Commission being established I would ask them to rethink their situation because it is quite clear that there will be conflict between the two Houses.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-Mr Chairman, you might think it appropriate for the Committee to adjourn, and I will continue my remarks after lunch.

Mr Bourchier:

– No.

Mr KEATING:

– All right, I will go on. The speech made by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) was a very curious one. He moved the amendment and he now asks the House to vote against the proposal that he made. It is curious also that the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) and the honourable member for McMillan should be extolling the virtues of the Human Rights Commission when both of them voted against extending the powers of that Commission to the States. That is what they did. Clearly, they -

Mr Simon:

– I abstained.

Mr KEATING:

– The honourable member for McMillan says that he abstained. I make the point that he did not vote with the Opposition. He voted against the legislation, and he voted against the amendments moved by the Opposition. Is the Human Rights Commission to apply only to the Australian Capital Territory? I suppose that there are minorities in the A.C.T. but it would have been an advance for Australia. All the pious words we are now hearing from honourable members opposite about how they are committed to human rights legislation would have been nice if they had backed up their attitudes by voting to extend that to the States. They would not extend it to the States. The Senate is saying now that these are inappropriate amendments. If the Government believed that these were inappropriate amendments in the first place, or that any amendment moved by the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) should have been a substantive issue and, therefore, decided on non-party lines, a decision could have been taken in the party room. A decision was not taken.

On the Martyr amendment and the Simon amendment- as they were called- the Government allowed a free vote on the matter. On that basis the House of Representatives made a decision. That decision has been rejected by the Senate. The Senate has the right to reject the amendment. Nevertheless, the Senate is an unrepresentative chamber and there is no reason why the representative chamber- which is the House of Representatives- ought to feel obliged to comply with any view on this matter put by the Senate. It would be better if there was unanimity of opinion between the Houses on such matters. Of course, Bills then become Acts of Parliament and are passed into law.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2. IS p.m.

Mr KEATING:

– I was saying before the suspension of the sitting for lunch that we will accept no more hollow rhetoric from Government members about the so-called Human Rights Commission and that we should not insist upon the House’s amendments so that it can survive. It was a half-baked commitment to form a Human Rights Commission anyway and the Government voted against the Opposition’s amendments to extend its operation to the States. I want to make it clear that I voted against the Martyr amendment on the last occasion; I voted in favour of the Simon amendment. I will now be voting in favour of insisting on the House’s amendments.

Let me say this: If this motion is passed, it will mean that the legislation will lapse. So the last two so-called anti-abortion initiatives have both come to nothing. The Lusher proposals were defeated and the Martyr amendment was defeated. It may be that the Simon amendment will be carried by the House of Representatives and that will be all. The initiatives both of the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) and the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) will have delivered the anti-abortion cause of this country two defeats that it could have well done without. The lemmings of the Right To Life Association should ponder on these two gentleman who, through their own initiatives, have brought these defeats upon the anti-abortion cause.

The law as it stands is sufficient. What is wrong with the law is the judicial interpretation and the manner in which the medical profession approaches the problem. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has pointed out on a number of occasions, the laws of the Parliament do not need to be changed because the criminal law already says that it is a criminal act to attempt an abortion whether the woman is with child or not. So the law does not need changing. There is nothing that can be advanced by these kinds of sporadic attempts in the House of Representatives. What is wrong is the way in which the medical profession treats the issue of abortion and the judicial interpretations of the law such as the Menhennitt and Levine rulings. The Right To Life Association ought to get that through its thick corporate head. It just does not seem to understand that the existing law is adequate. What is wrong with it is the judicial interpretations of the way in which the medical profession treats the issue which should be examined.

I do not doubt that the honourable member for Swan and the honourable member for Hume oppose abortion law reform or abortion on demand. But what I do doubt is their motivation in introducing amendments in this way because neither honourable member approached other members of the Parliament sympathetic to the anti-abortion cause. They decided upon their actions unilaterally. To get down to the truth of the matter, the last time the honourable member for Swan competed in a Federal election there was a whispering campaign that his opponent was an abortionist. But there may be no whispering campaign on this occasion because his opponent is Kim Beazley Junior, the son of Kim Beazley, the respected and former long-term member for Fremantle in this House. The candidate against him on this occasion, Mr Beazley, is opposed to the practice of abortion and his wife is a respected member of the Catholic community in the Swan electorate.

Mr Martyr:

– I will do him, too.

Mr KEATING:

– That is right, the honourable member will want to do him. That is the reason the honourable member put up these amendments. He thought -

Government members interjecting-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr Martyr:

– You withdraw that.

Mr KEATING:

– The honourable member put this up because he thought he would tie up the Catholic vote.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will remain silent when the Chair calls the Committee to order. The honourable member is required to address himself to the question before the Committee. He is being highly irrelevant. I would caution him against any intended or unintended reflections against honourable members.

Mr KEATING:

-The honourable member for Swan thought he would get a competitive edge in the ballot, tie up the church vote in Swan by this initiative -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr Martyr:

– I ask for a withdrawal of that statement.

Mr KEATING:

-I am not going to withdraw it. It is as simple as that. The same goes for the honourable member for Hume last year. So let us get down to the issue.

Mr Martyr:

– You withdraw that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I call the honourable member for Blaxland to withdraw the imputation or the direct statement as to the motivation of the honourable member for Swan.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is the truth.

Mr KEATING:

– It is the truth.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Does the honourable member for Blaxland withdraw?

Mr KEATING:

– I withdraw, Mr Chairman, because if I do not I will not be able to vote this afternoon. Mr Chairman, can I say this? Members of Parliament who have been opposed to abortion on demand have been vilified by the Right to Life Association and the Catholic Press when they have been quite clear in their opposition to abortion on demand, when they have been quite clear that they have supported any substantive issue which in fact tries to limit that practice. I believe that that vilification has been the direct result of ill-conceived initiatives by the honourable member for Swan and the honourable member for Hume. I question their motivation in putting forward those initiatives. I grant that both of them, I believe, would be opposed to this practice but I do not grant them the righteousness in the motivation with which they propose their amendments. So, essentially, what I have said before I mean.

I will be voting for the motion that the House insists on its amendment. Why should it not? It is a representative chamber and the Senate is an unrepresentative chamber. But let members of this House who have a conscientious view on abortion at least propose motions which are substantive, which can have some positive bearing upon what happens with abortion in this country and let us not have some half-baked proposal designed to guarantee their election at the next ballot.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-I wish to speak only very briefly because the case has been put already extremely well by the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr). I take the opportunity to congratulate the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) on a particularly cogent and well-prepared argument. I rise to speak on two matters only, one of which was raised earlier in the debate this morning and which I feel ought to be clarified in order that there is no misunderstanding on the part of any honourable member. There has been a legal debate as to whether or not it is competent for this Parliament to pass legislation which overrides international law or which varies in any way, shape or form an international covenant. I say no more than that. The High Court of Australia in 1945 in Polites’ case and Kandiliotes’ case laid down quite clearly in a unanimous judgment that it was within the province of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to pass any law which overrode any international law. These cases are relevant to these amendments because of the legal aspects which have been brought into the debate. These cases involved two Greek nationals who were called up to serve in the Australian military forces in World War II. They said: ‘You cannot do this because we are not Australian citizens’. The High Court said: ‘The legislation under which you are called up is perfectly constitutional ‘.

The other matter relates to whether or not a country can ratify a covenant with a reservation- in other words, ratify a part of the covenant or ratify the whole of the covenant. Five Western countries have ratified this covenant with a reservation. In other words, they have taken out of the covenant a part which otherwise would have applied.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Have any added to it?

Mr HODGMAN:

– If the honourable member will permit me to conclude, the power to reserve- that is the power to delete- incorporates clearly under international law the power to add.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– But has anyone?

Mr HODGMAN:

-No, but I can tell the honourable member that there is ample authority in respect of that proposition. The last matter I wish to refer to briefly are the words in the Senate’s message because I believe that it is an argument to which the chamber must address some response. I wish to do that very briefly. I deeply regret that the Senate saw fit to describe these amendments as irrelevant, obscure and uncertain. The rights which these amendments seek to protect are highly relevant and very clear. Secondly, I regret that the Senate said that such a change to the law should be made by substantive legislation. Is there anyone in this Parliament who disputes that an amendment carried in this place is just as substantive a matter of law as any Bill which is introduced?

Thirdly, the Senate stated:

The amendments … are not required for the proper operation of the Covenant in Australia and may cast doubts on the validity of the Bill . . .

The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Fitzpatrick) referred to the opinion given by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, on advice, that in no way could the amendments cast any doubt on the validity of the Bill. In the fourth argument of the Senate, the obligation to recognise and define the human rights of the unborn is described as unnecessary and likely to lead to a distortion of the activities of the Human Rights Commission. I reject those arguments and regret the terms in which they were expressed.

Last, but not least, in the fifth reason the Senate talks of the Commission being inundated with complaints and enmeshed in controversy. As one who supports the Commission, I hope that it is inundated with complaints in regard to any breach of human rights and that it does become enmeshed in controversy. If it does not it will not be doing its job. I believe that in this regard the Senate has given away the fact that its appreciation of the Commission is that apparently it is a tame cat organisation, one which will not be inundated with complaints or enmeshed in controversy. I submit that the Senate has done itself less than justice in the case that it has sent back to the House. The Senate’s case is no case. For those reasons I support as strongly as I can the motion of the Minister that the House should insist on the amendments that it passed in the sitting of 6 March.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Very briefly, I say that if I had been present when the Martyr and Simon amendments were being voted upon in the House, instead of being unavoidably absent from Canberra and the Parliament, I would have voted against both. I would not have troubled to spend the time of the Committee in explaining that, but for the fairly overbearing and intimidatory nature of the actions of certain groups and people who have had a tendency to uphold the amendment moved by the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr). We now have before us a proposal, which is to be the subject of a vote, to the effect that the House insists on its amendment. I will vote against that motion. It concerns me that the forms and procedures of the Committee require me to take an attitude that is at variance with my strong belief that decisions of this House should not be subject to determinations of the Senate. Yet, I must vote against the motion for other reasons. I take the view, in respect of the Bill, that attempts to define human rights in terms of the application of such rights to the unborn represent more of an exercise in propaganda for anti-abortionists- although I do not like the term and rarely use it- people who are opposed to the termination of pregnancy, and especially those who are opposed to it in all circumstances and eventualities. I do not believe that it is a useful embellishment to the legislation and it is certainly clear that under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights there is no obligation to deal with the rights of the unborn. If I were a proponent of either the Simon or Martyr amendments, put previously to the Parliament, I would have been showing that, of the 74 countries- I have before me a schedule, supplied by the Parliamentary Library, of countries which are signatories to the Covenantsome had found it necessary or essential to include a definition of the unborn and to provide protection for the unborn under such legislation as this. If that has been done by the proponents of the Martyr or Simon amendments it could have been very impressive and convincing, but as far as I am able to ascertain, no country has gone to the trouble of doing what some honourable members have sought to do in this House. In other words, it is clearly no requirement at all. There is no evidence that there has been, or is, any such requirement of any national signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which, incidentally, was open for signature in New York on 1 9 December 1 966. As I understand it, if Australia were to adopt the amendments which have been rejected by the Senate and are now the subject of this message, it would be taking an unprecedented course. If I am wrong I stand corrected. I want simply to say that this is not the machinery by which that important social question as to when human life commences should be made the subject of legislation. I believe that there is a tendency here towards strong anti-federalism and to override the legitimate prerogative of the States which manifests itself in so many ways in respect of this very vital matter.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) made some fairly harsh observations in relation to members of his party being, to use his word, ‘vilified’ and so on. I have been trying to find the particular Act or law which provides that if the members of any group threaten members of Parliament they can be brought before the

House. I suggest that if the honourable member for Blaxland were totally sincere in his interpretation of what might broadly be described as lobbying- if he really believed that it existed to the extent that he has suggested- he could have taken appropriate action.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Your own Minister said it.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Who said it?

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Immigration, Ian McPhee, said it in the House.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am only speaking now about the speech made by the honourable member for Blaxland. Let us leave it at that. The point I make is that the Human Rights Commission Bill is most unusual in that it is a Government Bill which has been amended on a private member’s motion- which in turn has been defeated in the Senate- and has been returned to this House, whereupon the Government has decided upon a certain course of action involving re-presentation of the Bill as originally amended.

Many honourable members believe strongly in the Bill itself. Indeed, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who is sitting on my immediate right and I and other members of the Law and Government Committee spent at least 16 hours during dinner hours, after dinner, and before Parliament commenced, suggesting changes that would make the Bill one that would be acceptable to this side of the House and also to try to accommodate some of the aspirations of other members of this chamber.

Some honourable members will argue that the Bill is useless because it does not go far enough, but there is no escaping the fact that it is a step in the right direction. I hope that all honourable members in this chamber are of one accord on that point. I hope that they are not prepared to jeopardise the Bill in its entirety because of what has become known as the Simon amendment. I direct a question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and Leader of the House (Mr Viner) who is now sitting at the table. I believe that he has the deepest obligation to answer because his answer could well determine how some members of this chamber will vote when the amendment is put. I ask: Will the Minister please tell the Parliament- it is a Government Bill so we are entitled to know- what the Government’s intention is for the Bill if we uphold our original decision in relation to the amendment and then it goes to the Senate and is again defeated? Will the Government simply let the Bill lapse and pass into oblivion?

I remind the Minister that, at the last election and in the Governor-General’s Speech we promised this Bill to the people of Australia. It is very important that we be told, and we have an entitlement to know, just what is the Government’s intention when this Bill passes to the Senate. There has been no indication that, if our original decision is upheld, the Senate has any intention of reversing its decision. If the Minister is not telling us that if we vote to continue the Simon amendment we will vote the Bill into oblivion, it is a deceitful act, although I do not say for a moment that he is a deceitful person, and we have every right to know about it.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-I want to refer to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which after all is the basis of this legislation. The Covenant is not something that was dragged out of the air. It is a document that evolved after long discussions in the international forum. It is a document that a large number of nations were prepared to accept, even though many of them may have had many reservations. In terms of the way in which those nations behave, it is quite clear that the human rights embodied in the Covenant are not cared for very carefully in many of the nations that are claiming they will try to aspire to the Covenant. We too can plead guilty in that cause in relation to some sections of our own community, for example, the Aborigines. Nevertheless, the Covenant is a document which a majority of the nations of the United Nations have been prepared to accept and which a large number have been prepared to sign.

I should have thought that it was not competent, rational or sensible to propose that such a document be modified in the way in which the amendment- the so-called Simon amendmentseeks to modify it. If we did that and if every other nation were free to make alterations in line with their particular quirks or approaches to the problem of human rights, the Covenant would cease to be what it purports to be. It would no longer be an international covenant agreed to by a broad spectrum of the community of nations. For that reason, if the basis of the constitutional power backing this legislation is in fact the power vested in the Commonwealth by virtue of its adherence to such international agreements, I just do not believe that it is competent for us to change it to suit a particular point of view in this community. That is my first point

I come now to the point of view relating to the rights of the unborn child. Might I suggest, as one who opposed the Simon amendment, that I am in favour of rights for the unborn. I think every member of this House is in favour of rights for the unborn child. This debate is about how one defines an unborn child. Some say that it is from viability, meaning viability independent of the mother once the child is born, and with modern resuscitation techniques, that can take it now to something less than six months, in some circumstances- very small mites indeed, but still viable. On the other hand, the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) and others on the Opposition side- I am not taking a political line- put the view that life starts at conception. In fact, one member on this side even suggests that maybe one could push the argument to a time before that. This is a matter of debate in the whole world community, not just within this country. Strong views about this issue are expressed everywhere in the world.

If we establish the Human Rights Commission and impose upon it a consideration of this nature, we will be forcing the Commission to make a decision about an issue on which there is not a consensus in the community. In my view we will put the Commission in an impossible position. We will force it to try to resolve the debate which is going on in the community, a debate which rightly can be resolved only in the Parliaments. We should not try to shift the burden away from our own shoulders and on to a body like the Commission. Somebody mentioned that the fault at the moment lies not with the law but with the medical profession and the judiciary. I disagree with that view. If there is something wrong in the way the law is functioning at the moment, then do not blame the judiciary, do not blame the medical profession. In my opinion, we have to change the law. It is not morally wrong in the sense that I want to take a side on the question of when life begins or when a child is a foetus and so on. I am simply saying that in my opinion it is wrong to force the debate- a debate which is raging in the community- on to the shoulders of the Commission.

For that reason, I think we should uphold the view of the Senate because that is the view the Senate has taken. It would not be saying that we are in favour of abortion on demand. It would not be saying that we do not recognise the rights of the unborn child. It would simply be saying, if we uphold the view that has been taken by the Senate, that we support the minimum the world community has been able to accept in the human rights area. It would mean that we are acknowledging that we should be pressing as hard as we can to see those minimum human rights protected as far as is possible in this community. It would not be trying to force the Human Rights

Commission to make a decision for the whole community on this very vexed question of the rights of the unborn and the highly debatable question of when the foetus has rights independent of its mother. That is the sort of issue involved.

I and every other member has a view on this matter. We will disagree. We will argue about it. We must make up our minds and specifically legislate in those terms. We should not try to force the argument onto the back of the Human Rights Commission. In fact, I do not believe that the legislation without this amendment is as good as it should be. I could argue that in some cases maybe it should be thrown out, but I accept the point made by the previous speaker that it is a step in the right direction. If we get into power, I trust that a Labor government will strengthen the legislation and do all the things we have tried to do in the amendments we are proposing. For those reasons, I would prefer to see the Bill passed in the form in which it was put originally on behalf of the Government, much as I have reservations about its adequacy. I would regret it deeply if we foisted onto the Commission this unnecessary debate and burden. My guess is that the Commission would become bogged down in an argument it would not be able to resolve, and then we would have achieved nothing at all.

Mr HYDE:
Moore

-The Committee knows where I stand on this issue, and I wish to make but one point. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) has made an attack upon the motivation of the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr). I say to honourable members that unless members of this House have the charity to respect the motivations of people with whom they disagree and the decency to refrain from impugning that motivation, this Parliament is in for serious trouble. It will break down. As I defended my opponent in this matter last time it was debated, I now defend my ally. The honourable member for Swan is an honourable man and he who suggests that he is not condemns himself.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-I briefly enter the debate; I have not taken the opportunity before to speak on the Human Rights Commission Bill. During the debate on the Lusher motion I made quite clear my attitudes in this field. I have heard no argument nor seen any reason to change my views since those days. I comment that the term ‘abortion’ is being used in this debate in an inflammatory sense. What we are talking about is the deliberate termination of pregnancy by intervention. When people quote numbers of so-called abortions, they should realise that about one in four pregnancies terminate in an inevitable abortion through physiological reasons, not through deliberate intervention. That is why I wish honourable members would use the term ‘deliberate termination of pregnancy’. Then we woud have a definitive way of thinking about it in these debates.

In this instance I feel that the amendments put forward by the House of Representatives are quite inappropriate to the legislation. I will not reiterate the arguments about the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which forms an appendix to the Bill and which was agreed on internationally after much debate. I listened to the contribution of the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) with regard to the legal effect of the amendments. Once again, I believe that the legal effect of such amendments would be only to confuse the issue further and to interfere with the activities of the Human Rights Commission. One wonders whether this device for bringing before the chamber this emotional issue, in which there is a great deal of division in the community, has done the cause of human rights a great disservice by attracting attention away from the virtues which should be found in such a Bill and which could have been helped by mature consideration in other areas and focusing it on one subject. No matter how much compassion one feels in this field one cannot but believe that great damage has been done to the cause of the Human Rights Commission by the interference of this red herring.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– I wish to speak extremely briefly. I was not present when the Human Rights Commission Bill was previously before the Chamber. Naturally as Foreign Minister I am committed to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I am also strongly committed to this legislation. As a matter of political principle, quite apart from conscience, I strongly support the legislation. It is time that Australia had a Human Rights Commission. I will not place the passage of the legislation in jeopardy. Therefore, I will be voting against the motion. On the question of the rights of the unborn child, as I read the legislation, if the Commission deems a termination of pregnancy to be a breach of human rights, it can act. This can be done under the legislation. The legislation will not permit abortion on demand. It may well have the reverse effect. Because of my absence on the previous occasion, I wished to indicate my view succinctly before voting against the motion.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-I will make my remarks brief. On the last occasion I voted against both amendments. On this occasion I will also vote against the amendments. I will do so reluctantly because I prefer to follow the decisions of this chamber rather than those of the Senate. On this occasion I find myself in the position of supporting the majority in the Senate. Normally I support the authority of the majority in the House of Representatives. One cannot be dogmatic in life. It is a sad situation that we have to follow the decisions of another place but on this occasion we have no other option. I agree with one point made by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) and disagree with another. I agree that the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) has done his cause a great deal of harm. I know that it is his conviction that he is fighting for the right cause, that he used the procedure to bring the matter forward and that he should bring it forward at every opportunity.

I think it is regrettable that discussion in this chamber on human rights has been limited. The Government gagged the second reading debate. At the second reading stage of the Bill there was a limited debate which disqualified many honourable members who wanted to talk about the broad aspect of human rights. The human rights of the Aboriginal people in this country are appalling. The human rights of many other people and of minorities throughout the world are affected in many ways. Certainly it would have been better, in my view, had we had a much broader and more in-depth debate on the broad problems of human rights not only in this country but also in other parts of the world.

I disagree with the honourable member for Blaxland when he said that he believed that the law on abortion was all right and that it was only a matter of how the judiciary interpreted the law. I believe that a woman should have complete control over her body and that she should be able to make the decisions about what she should do in that regard. I believe that in that regard still too many restrictions are placed on women, even by the judiciary. I would like to see the laws of the land relating to abortion repealed and all criminal aspects deleted from those laws. We in this chamber know that if such laws are to be amended, they have to be amended by the States. We in this Parliament have power to pass legislation in this respect only in relation to the Australian Capital Territory, Norfolk Island and the Territories under our control. On this issue of abortion we have the authority to legislate only for a very narrow portion of the population of Australia and the States have to make their own decisions. I say with some sadness that we spent so much time discussing this matter when we need not have done so. I support the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) in that I would like to see the legislation go forward. Although I think it is a very inadequate piece of legislation, at least it is a slight step in the right direction.

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– On the two previous occasions when very important votes on this matter were taken in this chamber I supported the Lusher motion and the Martyr amendment. On both those occasions, I believe, those honourable members were expressing a concern felt by the majority of people in this country by proposing that we should honour and respect the lives of unborn Australians. The information I have is that at present about 100,000 people a year have abortions. At present the cost of that involvement under medical benefit health schedules is about $4m. At the same time we are spending about $30m each year on bringing 70,000 migrants to this country. I cannot see the logic of that from the cost point of view, if from no other point of view.

I believe that to some extent our vaunted Australian way of life has become a way of death. There is rightly concern that the self-will expressed in, say, excessive alcohol consumption leads to half of more than 4,000 deaths and 40,000 injuries a year on the roads. This figure, appalling as it is, is far less significant than the blood loss of unborn children which is now estimated to be 100,000 a year. I believe that a high price is being paid for this. The worst parts of that price are a deadening of the conscience and a declining value being placed on children. We are less sensitive than we were a few years ago. A concern for Australia and a concern for children, whether they be Aboriginal, handicapped or gifted, are barometers of the sensitivity of the nation’s conscience. I sometimes think that opponents of abortion have envisaged their main task to be to change the law, or to prevent the law from being changed, in such a direction as will authorise this blood letting. The law is important. However, recently the slaying of unborn children, as a practice, has increased vastly without any change in the law but with a definite deadening of conscience and, I believe, with a loss of vision. It is to the questions of conscience and vision as well as to the law that we must address ourselves.

Another consequence of the assault on the family is the decline in national security. In 5lh years between 1939 and 1945, Australia lost some 16,000 dead. At the present rate, in 5 te years, we will lose, in our clinics, about 550,000 dead- 34 times as many. The threat to Australian security implied in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is peanuts compared with this appalling drain on our youth and, I believe, our future. Thus we have a fear of a lower standard of living and that fear is a motive in the slaying of children. The low birthrate is a vitally important factor in lessening economic demand and increasing unemployment. Children between the age of zero and six years create all sorts of demands. This is obvious in the teaching profession but it is true of almost everywhere. At the present rate, there will soon be a shortage of some 600,000 children over the age of six years at primary schools. At 25 children to a class, that means that about 24,000 teachers will not be needed.

The assault on the family diminishes our economic security and, indeed, our economic activity. One essential battle is at all times to assert the dignity and the right of the child. Here I would like to note the United Nations Charter on the rights of the child which insists upon the rights of the unborn child. The unborn child, I believe, is unborn but that does not mean that it is not alive. It is alive. It is a separate person. At the time when capital punishment existed, no pregnant woman could be hanged on the ground that it was immoral to take the life of an innocent party, that party being an unborn child. The unborn baby has always been, in law, considered a separate and Jiving member of society. I venture to suggest that protecting and fostering the unborn child as a living member of our society is one of the paths to national health and social sanity. The sanctity of the family is the ultimate preserve of the integrity of the professions and without the concept of the sanctity of the family and the law, medicine can become corrupt and the reforming and transforming motive in society is lost. If we authorise the destruction of the family, the Parliament becomes less interested in health, education and wellbeing. Killing is used as a substitute for health, education and social reform.

I think that the Senate, in voting against the amendments proposed by this House, did not show the degree of concern that I would have expected from its members. I believe that our insistence upon these amendments is something that is right and proper for this House, and I say that after a great deal of consideration and a great deal of thought. My office has been flooded with correspondence on this matter. I have had a number of phone calls in connection with it not only here in Canberra but also in Brisbane. Both sides have put to me an argument which they believe is correct and right.

I have not wavered from the view I took when I first voted in this House on the Lusher motion. I believe that it was fair and right and I exercised my privilege to listen to both sides of the argument that were put forward in the last few weeks in relation to the Martyr amendment. I admire the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) for the stand he has taken. I believe it is a correct one. I believe it is a stand which we should uphold. I believe that the future of this country is most definitely in the hands of the people who are prepared to stand up and be counted in the way in which the honourable member for Swan has done. I also feel that my own decision to support that amendment and to vote for the insistence upon our amendments reflects the view of the majority of fair people in our society who do want to see a bigger, better and very much greater Australia. I think we can achieve that if we stop this killing which is going on in certain States at present. I support the insistence on the amendments.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I appeal to my colleagues, the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr), the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Peter Johnson) and the honourable member for Moore (Mr Hyde), to consider what their continued pursuit of these amendments means. It means, of course, that this legislation will stop somewhere in limbo between us and the Senate. I do not see that that is any achievement at all. If the honourable members who are prepared to support the amendments wish to proceed in that way, the logical thing to do would be to bring in a special piece of legislation. As I understand the situation, the Bill will basically apply only to the Australian Capital Territory anyhow, and the legislation can be carried out by ordinance.

We have a national and international duty to put this legislation on the books. In a world of trouble, tribulation and oppression, this is one of the free countries. I would challenge the rather pessimistic view of our society promulgated in this debate just a few moments ago by my colleague, the honourable member for Brisbane, when I consider what has happened in the last 20-odd years to various social attitudes in Australia. Corporal punishment has been abolished in fact, if not by legislation. Capital punishment has been abolished both by legislation and in fact, over most of Australia. We have changed the White Australia policy. We have dropped it. We have approached our migration attitudes in a more liberal way. Even though the Aboriginal people have a long way to go before they are a free and an equal part of this society, they are much further along the line than they were 20 years ago. There is:now equal pay for women and so on. So I do ‘not think that the non-passage of this legislation will turn the clock back. What I want honourable- members to do is to realise that in pursuing the amendments they destroy the legislation. That seems to be the burden of the behaviour of the people in charge of the Bill. If they do that, they are stopping this Parliament placing on the record the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It includes the following provisions which I think are necessary and vital in this case. Article 12.2 provides:

Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

Article 12.4 provides:

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

I have quoted those two as samples. None of the things which honourable members are pursuing in this instance is worth pursuing at the cost of that exercise when there are other, courses open to them. As parliamentarians, we must realise that it is time to get this legislation on the books, to accept our international obligations and to ensure that in this country at least we can stand up and say: ‘That is in the book; that is the legislation in Australia ‘.

We were all eager to consider and debate the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on human rights in the Soviet Union. If we are to be consistent, we should put this legislation on the books. What I am saying this afternoon- and I take it that everybody is aware of my attitude in the debates on this subject in which I have spoken and on human rights in general, whether here or overseas- is that I am for a free society, for free people and the dignity of human beings. But none of that will be furthered in any way whatsoever by the continued pursuit of these amendments. Let us pass the legislation, send it back to the Senate, get it on the statute books and take the next parliamentary steps which are open to all of us to try to amend the situation along the lines that our friends have been talking about, if that is the way we wish to do it I appeal to honourable members to pass this legislation and then to let us get on with the business of seeing it is implemented. If further changes are necessary, let us do so by some other method. I say that honourable members are destroying the legislation in the pursuit of a chimera which cannot be achieved infaceof the opposition in the Senate.

Mr BAUME:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I join with the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) in stressing to the Leader of the House (Mr Viner), who is atthe table, the vital importance to many of us on the back bench of the answer to the question that the honourable member for Fadden has put to him. If, indeed, the insistence on the amendments will mean that the Bill will not proceed, if rejected by the Senate, then it does place many of us who strongly support the human rights legislation in a very difficult position, particularly if we had, in fact, supported the Martyr amendment which represented, I believe, the quite proper support for the concern expressed by many people in Australia about the excessive level of abortion in this country. There is a real sense of concern in the electorate at large about this matter. It presents to many of us the dreadful conflict that if we support the insistence of a proposition which we have already voted for it may well destroy, as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) has suggested, the prospect of this legislation being passed.

I stress to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs who is at the table that I was most concerned to hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) express his sense of uneasiness about the future of the legislation if the amendment is insisted upon. I believe that it underlines the absolute necessity for the Minister to explain to us whether that concern by the Minister for Foreign Affairs is properly held. I must say that reluctantly, in the absence of any effective assurance about the future of the legislation, I would be obliged not to support the insistence on the amendment.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-In 1973 when a proposition was before the Parliament which meant, in effect, abortion on demand in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, I voted against it. On 22 March 1979 when the Lusher motion was before the chamber, I voted against that and I voted for the Simon amendment. Once again, because of views which are quite fully outlined on page 1095 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 22 March 1979,I opposed the Lusher motion because therewere not any exceptions. I made it quite clear when I stated my attitude in 1973 that it was a question of opposition to abortion on demand. When the. Human Rights Commission Bill came before the Committee I voted against the Martyr amendment and voted for the Simon amendment.Nothing has occurred between 1973 and today to make me vary my attitude. It is an attitude which is fixed. It is not one of religious conviction; it is not one of opportunism. I think that Chifley is quite safe for democracy. It is a question of strong personal convictions. It is an attitude which I feel very strongly about.

I think that one has only to look around to see how many married couples these days can adopt a child. It is virtually impossible for them to do so. I believe that the tendency in this society today to move towards abortion on demand is one of the major reasons why it is so difficult to adopt a child. It is something which is very horrifying indeed. I could not support the Martyr amendment which virtually speaks of the moment of conception as being the beginning of life. That argument is getting very close to the next step, that there must not be any contraception. I could not agree with such a proposition. For that reason I will vote for the motion. In other words, I will be voting for the Simon amendment. Having said that, I want to make a few observations.

I cannot understand why it is that Canberra is always the battleground for this issue. The whole question of abortion law, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and Norfolk Island- not even the Northern Territory- comes within the jurisdiction of the State governments. It is for them to legislate. Yet for some reason the battleground is always here in Parliament House, Canberra. I cannot understand, for example, why the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) in the recent Western Australian elections did not make a major issue of this during that State election campaign. It was a very logical thing for him to do. That is the battleground; that is where the question should be resolved and that is where the jurisdiction is. I believe that people who are concerned on this issue should remember that.

I would also like to make the point that I believe there should be far more discussion of and far more assistance given by the Government and the Parliament to the need for support services for pregnant women. Very little is being heard on this issue. Very little is being done. I can recall when the previous Labor Government introduced assistance for unmarried mothers it was very strongly opposed by the conservative elements in this community who suggested that we were encouraging immorality. The fact is that we were encouraging women to have their children and not to resort to abortion. For that reason I believe that those who feel so strongly on this issue- I give them full credit for feeling so strongly- should also act just as strongly on the question of the need for support sendees for pregnant women in need, particularly unmarried mothers.

Once again I state that I will be supporting the motion before the Committee. I cannot accept the argument that women have complete control over their bodies. If that were the case, we would have to accept a similar argument that they can, in effect, take drugs. The argument could be carried on to many other aspects. I do not think that that is valid argument. There are some exceptions. I adhered to that in 1973, 1979 and I adhere to that today in 1980. In this case, I believe that the Simon amendment fits in very well with my opposition to abortion on demand at all times. That degrading aspect has entered into society and is having a tremendous impact to the detriment of the young generation who should be born here in Australia.

Mr PORTER:
Barker

-Unlike the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) I do not believe that a woman should have complete control over her body when she is carrying a foetus. However, I want to look at what the supporters of the amendment to the Human Rights Commission Bill seek to achieve. Do they seek to make a public statement that there are too many abortions taking place or that the abortion law perhaps ought to be made less lenient in each State? If that is the case, I believe there are many who would vote for such a proposition, but not in the form of an amendment to this Bill. The question to be asked is whether that end will be achieved by this amendment. If this amendment has any force it means that people can complain to the Human Rights Commission that there has been a breach of the rights of the unborn. Presumably that will lead to a review, in the case of an abortion, of the evidence on which the woman sought an abortion, the doctor’s reasons for performing the abortion and a resolution of the question of whether the unborn baby’s rights have been breached in circumstances where the breach of the human right of the baby is greater than the right of the mother.

For example, the Commission may make a decision that the life of the mother was not in fact in danger, as the doctor thought, and that the abortion should not have been carried out. What rules does the Commission use to decide between mother and baby? Clearly, the laws in the appropriate States are not satisfactory to the supporters of the amendment, otherwise there would be no reason for the amendment. Can the States look to the Federal statutes? I do not believe that there are any. Can they look to the Covenant which is attached to this Bill? I do not believe that the Covenant resolves the issues satisfactorily. There is no doubt that the unborn child has legal rights. The courts have recognised some of these rights in claims for damages in road accident cases.

I do not believe that the amendment will be able to be reasonable, understood or interpreted. I believe that too many abortions take place. But I do not believe that a woman who has undergone a legal operation in what is probably the most difficult time that a woman ever has to go through, should have to go through the whole thing again, together with her doctor, before this Commission, when the Commission has been given no clear guidelines under which to operate. If we want to change the State laws we should endeavour to do so. We should endeavour to do something about them. I do not believe that tacking this amendment on to this Bill will achieve that aim. I see that it could create a very unsatisfactory situation.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I will be very brief. The question that we have been discussing for some time, if we analyse it, is: What is the law at present and how should we change it? It is important, if one has principles as a legislator, to legislate those principles into action. I am now speaking personally as to my attitude to the amendments which are before the committee. If this BUI applied to State laws and the laws of the Northern Territory one could hardly quibble with the amendments that have been moved because they add nothing to the law. The Opposition, in moving its amendments, has said: ‘Look, if it is human rights that we want in this country we should have them.’ The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Article 50, states that it should apply to a Federal state. We will now demand that these rights apply to all the States and the Northern Territory and that they be judicially enforceable.

We heard in this chamber this afternoon the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) saying how he favoured the introduction of a much stronger Bill. He said that he went to the various State Ministers and they all rejected him because, they said, that they wanted to control the law in the area of abortion. They also wanted to control the law in relation to any other matter such as equal franchise or the rights of Aborigines. The Government caved in and has come to this legislation. What will the Government do now that it is in this state of no-progress? I would have thought that when the Government had the initial legislation before its Cabinet it would have considered these matters. The Bill has already passed through the Senate. I would have thought that when it was introduced into the Government party room the two honourable members who felt that there was some defect in the legislation would have then moved their amendments and had the alterations made in the Bill. But the Government has got itself into a situation in which two honourable members who have a principle in mind but who do not intend to legislate about it are asking us to support them.

Speaking personally, I will never support people who, when they have a chance to bring their principles into action by legislation, do not do so, but then stand up and say: ‘I am merely moving a matter of principle. It will not affect the law one iota’. I am not going to support those sorts of people. I cannot do so. When people have a chance to bring in State laws to provide for the rights of people, and then that chance is denied, those actions are against my principles. We have taken three votes on it. Those two gentlemen- I understand their views- who voted against the legislation, could not surely expect me to now say: ‘Well, look, we have a few words here. They read very well and they sound nice but they do nothing for the law, so I will support the amendment’. Ignorance is no excuse in this chamber. What is the law that we are anxious to protect?

I have received a lot of insulting letters from Bishops and many other people saying that I am weak, that I am lacking in principle and that I allowed a moment of greatness to pass me by because I did not vote for this legislation which would have guaranteed effective human rights in Australia. That is utter nonsense. The legislation guarantees no human rights in Australia. The Bill states that the Commission can conduct an examination or an inquiry and can report to a Minister. That applies only in respect of the laws in the Australian Capital Territory. How insincere can the Government get? What is the law? This is the law. The rights of a child before birth are clearly established in the decision of Watt v. Rama which clearly says: ‘An unborn child has rights’. It is a decision of the law. None of the honourable members opposite wants to change that decision and I do not either.

The other question is: What about the criminal code of abortion? All of us are against abortion. The big issue which is never debated in this Parliament is what defences we will allow the woman, the mother-to-be, who has the foetus destroyed, willingly or unwillingly. When we charge her with the crime of abortion what defences will we allow her? If she is found guilty to what gaol terms must she be sentenced? I want to make my views very clear. We all agree that abortion is a crime but I think we then start to disagree as to what defences we will allow a woman. No honourable members have ever spoken about this- not one of them. What period should she spend in gaol? The law says that she can go to gaol for a period of from five to ten years. Then we say: ‘Oh yes, but then there might be the argument as to when conception takes place’. As the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) has reminded us, the law says that whether or not a woman is with child, any attempt made to procure an abortion renders her liable to penalty. What are we trying to do here today? Are we to put up a poster saying: ‘We believe that life commences from conception’? So does the law. Do we believe, then, that a child has rights before birth? So does the law.

I ask the fundamental question: ‘Do we want to make the law apply to the States’? Honourable members say: ‘Oh, no, leave that out. We do not want that. ‘ Why is it that they do not face up to the issue? I really think that the greatest problem facing us in this area is how to help a pregnant girl to go through the whole period of pregnancy. She needs economic aid, mainly. That would save many lives. There is an International Covenant of social and economic validity which states that a living wage should be paid to women prior to and after the birth of a child. That is the important thing. I have just looked at a report compiled by a Counsellor from the ProLife Emergency Pregnancy Support Service Centres, who deals with this tragedy from day to day. These centres deserve support. I do not know whether the Commonwealth Government gives them any support. Let us look at the sorts of human problems that come to the notice of these councillors and see what defence we would allow these people and what gaol term we would give them. I make the point that I would allow them the defence of their health. I would not send any woman to gaol. One counsellor said:

I am often confronted by 13, 14 or IS year olds who are crying out for love and security- they come from multiproblem families and have never had love or security themselves.

That is one group. Can any honourable member say that that particular type of young person should go to gaol for five or ten years? The real issue to talk about is love and security. Here is another case:

I had to tell a young 16-year old girl that her pregnancy test was positive and she sobbed for a long time . . ‘How am I going to tell my parents . . . they’ll kill me?’

They would not kill her, we understand that. But we can understand the problems of a 16-year old girl having to face up to the issue. All these women would love life. They love children. They understand the situation. They have got themselves into a predicament. It has not been of their own initiative. There is some male somewhere in the background who is not going to be charged with anything and who is able to go scot-free. We say that this is not to be worried about I come to the final category. A counsellor states:

I am presently counselling a young girl who seems to fit into this category.

The category is one that needs understanding, as they say. The report continues:

Her life seems to have been a disaster from birth. She was premature, abandoned, fostered, institutionalised, married, deserted, had two abortions, been a prostitute- she is 17 years of age.

We should be doing as much as we can to overcome the causes of these problems in our society. I am in a predicament in this regard. I hold beliefs which I bring into practice, as do most people in Australia. We are fighting to remain strong against all the economic, social and family problems which we know some of our families have experienced in the past, whether it be in the last century or however long ago. We know the human problems. How many of us in the legal profession have had to defend people on this basis, but what is the defence? The law at the moment says: ‘Abortion is a crime but you have a defence. You have to establish that it will affect the health of the mother. If that fails the mother goes to gaol’. I think that is wrong, but that is the law.

The Government is getting itself into enormous difficulties in this respect. This piece of legislation already has been passed by the Senate. Section 57 of the Constitution does not apply. It is not even a matter that relates to this Bill. The Government could well have lost the passage of the Bill because Government senators disagree with it. What sort of a government is a government which is so anxious to talk about human rights- we all are- and which gets itself into the position, having introduced a Bill, of being unable apparently to convince its party room of what it is all about and being unable to convince its senators of what it is all about? We are now discussing two amendments that have no effect at all. They will not apply to the States or to some of the Territories. I think the logical thing for this Government to do is to withdraw the Bill and to introduce a new Bill applying the legislation to the States. We can put in the fancy phrases if that is what honourable members want- I will not disagree with them because they do nothing to the law- but we should certainly make the legislation effective.

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

– It looks as though I am in a position to finish this debate. I feel that I ought to make some comments in answer to questions asked of me by certain honourable members and to some remarks by other honourable members and to say something concerning the reasons given by the Senate for disagreeing with the amendments made by this House. Firstly, I will deal with the questions asked by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) and the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume). They said that their vote on the motion will depend upon what I say will happen in the event of the Senate continuing to disagree with this chamber. I simply put it to those honourable members that clearly it would be the worst thing in the world for me now to say in this chamber that if the Senate maintains its disagreement the Government will get the Bill passed in any case. All that would do would be to relieve honourable senators from the obligation of casting a conscience vote on their own account on these amendments. That is the issue that will be before each individual senator. Therefore, it is not incumbent upon me to relieve them of their clear obligation to cast a conscience vote.

The matter is hypothetical at this stage but if honourable members look at the Standing Orders of the Senate, particularly Standing Order 228, they will see the procedures open to the Senate in a case such as is now confronting the two places. I remind honourable members that a similar situation arose- not on a disagreement on a conscience vote but a disagreement between the two Houses- in 1950 on the Social Services Consolidation Bill. It is set out in the journals and proceedings of both places just what happened. In the end the Senate gave way on certain amendments. In the first place, the Senate insisted in its disagreement on another amendment and sought a conference with this chamber. This chamber refused to have a conference and the Senate gave way on its disagreement. I just outline to honourable members that there are precedents for the way in which disagreements of this kind are settled under the Standing Orders of each place.

The right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) criticised the amendments by saying that it was wrong and even beyond the power of this Parliament to pass laws affecting the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights. Let me say to honourable members in the clearest of terms that it is perfectly legitimate for the Parliament of the Commonwealth to say that within Australia, for the purposes of domestic law, something should be added to the Covenant by way of clarification or by way of additional rights. In fact, with respect to the very question that is now before the Commonwealth Parliament, debates in the United Nations leading to the adoption of the Covenant clearly show that the United Nations recognised that any country ratifying the Covenant could add to its domestic law a law dealing with the very subject that we are debating. In other words, a ratifying state could decide for itself whether human rights arise before, as well as after, birth for the purposes of the Covenant.

I wish to deal now with the reasons of the Senate. I speak for myself in this respect. The records of this chamber show that I supported both the Martyr amendment and the Simon amendment. I find the reasons given by the Senate most unsatisfying. I judge them to be reasons of convenience rather than reasons of conscience. I think a fair-minded approach to the amendments will show that they are both meaningful and workable. I invite honourable members, in endeavouring to test what I say, to write the additional words into the Covenant, the recital and Articles 1 and 2. If they do they will see, as I have said, that the amendments are both meaningful and workable.

I will deal now with each of the reasons of the Senate for disagreeing to the amendments of the House of Representatives. The first reason states that the amendments are irrelevant and will lead to obscurity and uncertainty. That is not so. The amendments are not unreasonable. They will in fact clarify the position of the Human Rights Commission when anyone approaches the Commission concerning the rights of the unborn child. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack), in speaking in the Senate, made this absolutely clear.

Dr Jenkins:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I seek your guidance. We are in a difficult situation. Is the Minister speaking as a Minister in this debate? Under those circumstances he is entitled to unlimited time. I understood him to say that he was now giving his private view. If he is giving his private view it would seem to me to be unfair to other members of the Committee to allow him unlimited time.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The honourable member for Scullin raises an interesting point. The Chair assumed that the Minister was speaking as the Minister in charge of the Bill. It is therefore prepared to allow him to proceed on that basis. That does not ‘preclude him from offering individual and private views at appropriate times.

Mr VINER:

– As honourable members would appreciate, I found myself in the position of having to answer questions directed to me as Minister in charge of the Bill. I have made it quite clear that in making these comments I am speaking for myself. As to the second reason given by the Senate- the accusation of tacking- I suggest that that is an unfair accusation because the amendments proposed are directly concerned with human rights. That, of course, is what the Bill is all about. The third reason states:

The amendments extending the definition of ‘human rights’ to the unborn and extending the Covenant are not required for the proper operation of the Covenant in Australia and may cast doubts on the validity of the Bill insofar as it may depend on the External Affairs power of the Commonwealth.

Let me say immediately and plainly that the Bill does not depend upon the external affairs power of the Constitution for its validity. The fourth reason states:

The imposition on the proposed Human Rights Commission of an obligation to recognize and necessarily to define human rights of the unborn is unnecessary to its proper purposes and is likely to lead to a distortion of its activities.

I suggest that what the amendments do with regard to this very vital question of human rights of the unborn child is to give some clarification to the Commission as to the interpretation in particular of article 6 and other articles of the Covenant. Certainly there would have come before the Commission at some time the very questions to which the amendments are directed.

The final reason put forward by the Senate is to suggest that the Commission will be inundated with complaints and that the amendments are likely to heighten controversy. If there are complaints to be made the Commission is able to deal with such complaints. Therefore, if there are complaints about the human rights of the unborn child it is proper that the Commission should be told that it is the view of this Parliament that the Commission is to have regard to those rights. As to controversy, the whole point of the Parliament itself is to focus on controversial issues. If we were ever to resile from that, or if we resiled from passing laws which may put the administrator of those laws in a controversial position, then indeed we we would be an impotent Parliament.

Finally, I make one short comment on the remarks made by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) who, along with other honourable members from the Opposition, keeps saying that the Commission will be able to operate only in respect to laws of the Australian Capital Territory. That is not correct. The functions of the Commission are to operate with regard to all the laws of the Commonwealth and all the laws of the Territories of the Commonwealth except for the Northern Territory for the very straightforward reason that, with selfgovernment, the Northern Territory has always been treated as if it is a State.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

- Mr Chairman, I claim to have been misrepresented.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? He may proceed.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have been misrepresented by the Leader of the House (Mr Viner). What I said in relation to the Covenant is this:

Technically, we have here a Bill to which is annexed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

I did not say that we could not amend the Covenant. I went on to say:

This is a covenant of the United Nations to which we agree.

In fact, we did agree to that Covenant. I continued:

The honourable member wants to amend the recitals to the Covenant. He does not try to amend any proposed law contained in the Bill which he cannot do . . .

Those are the words that I used.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) was not right in saying that the Human Rights Commission Bill applies to all the laws of the Commonwealth. I specifically draw attention to clause 5 which states:

This Act binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth but does not bind the Crown in right of a State or of the Northern Territory.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. The explanation given by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner)- in relation to his not telling the Committee what will happen to the Human Rights Commission Bill if it is defeated in the Senate- is almost reckless. Honourable members are entitled to know. I wonder whether the Minister’s total preoccupation with this particular subject is in some way causing a grey area in his mind as to what honourable members are entitled to know. Honourable members are entitled to know exactly what are the Government’s intentions with this Bill if it is defeated in the Senate. He is asking us now to choose between supporting the

Simon amendment or risking the abandonment of a Bill which many of us believe should be implemented at some stage. The Minister should be given another chance to explain that matter in greater detail. We have not been given a fair go.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 50

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 1617

GRIEVANCE DEBATE

Police Action in the Australian Capital

Territory- Fundings for Roads- Monitoring of Kangaroos- Television Reception in La Trobe Area- Effect of Herbicides and Other

Chemicals on Vietnam Veterans- Land Development Scheme in Queensland- Defence Force Reserve: Compensation and Unemployment Benefits- PassportsEmployment Opportunities- AntarcticTreatment of Animals- Children’s Schoolbags

Question proposed:

That grievances be noted.

Mr FRY:
Fraser

– I would like to draw the attention of the House to the increasing number of allegations of police violence and brutality in the Australian Capital Territory by members of the Australian Federal Police Force. I would like to point out, of course, that this tendency is not confined to the Australian Federal Police. There have been other similar allegations from other parts of Australia, particularly in relation to the street march issue in Brisbane and more recently in regard to a demonstration against the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in Melbourne. This is an unfortunate development which appears to be encouraged by an expectation that this sort of conduct will be condoned and supported by a government led by a Prime Minister who appears to be obsessed with conflict and by a harsh application of the law of the repressive forces of the States at demonstrations. It is particularly unfortunate in the Australian Capital Territory where traditionally the Australian Capital Territory Police have generally enjoyed a friendly and close relationship with the community, a relationship based on the British tradition of the police officer being seen as a friend and protector of the citizen.

I find it very distasteful to have to bring before this House allegations of police brutality and violence. Traditionally, I have enjoyed working in close co-operation with the police in the Australian Capital Territory. I have generally found them to be sympathetic and most supportive of me and my office in dealing with social problems in Canberra. The large majority of them are sensitive and understanding officers for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect. Unfortunately, I have been receiving an increasing number of allegations of unnecessary violence and brutality by a small number of police officers. This practice, if not stamped out, can bring the whole force into disrepute. It is also an unfortunate fact that when I have passed on these allegations the casesin question have gone through the usual processes of the law where the magistrate tends to accept the evidence of the police rather than that of the complainant or the defendant.

On the night of 14 March, a 21st birthday party was being held at the residence of Mr and Mrs Williamson for their son Wayne at 12 Holroyd Street, Watson, which is a suburb in my electorate. As a result of police action at that party, eight people have since approached me and made allegations against the police which in my view are so serious that they should be brought before this House and made known to the public. I believe that they should be the subject of a special inquiry. I ask members of this House to consider how they would feel if the following allegations, which I will outline briefly, had taken place at the 21st birthday party of their sons or daughters. The following information was supplied to me by a well known and highly respected professional man on whose integrity I have complete reliance. He has written to me as follows:

Dear Ken,

I have questioned separately at least 15 young people about the fracas in Holroyd Street Watson, on the night of Friday 14 March 1980.

The stories all tally and I have no reason to doubt their authenticity. Mr and Mrs Williamson gave a 21st birthday party for their son Wayne after consulting with and inviting the neighbours. At about 2130 hours 40 police gate- crashed the party and began attacking, harrassing and assaulting . . . people . . .

Justin and Straun . . . were attacked . . . after which Kim . . . was sought, found and handcuffed. Kim is a young professional lady of great dignity and talent and I am very angry because she had her blouse torn to pieces and was half dragged, half carried upside down to a police car, locked up till 5 a.m., next day . . .

Justin’s young lady friend, Jenny . . . was similarly treated. She was wearing bib and brace overalls which were indecently torn from around her body and she was also locked up until next morning . . . Soon after the police arrived, garden furniture and the hired tent were smashed and the Williamson’s garden was flattened and destroyed. At the same time a dozen policemen attempted to break into the house and in the process, smashed a window.

Mr Williamson protested to deaf ears. None of the police displayed their numbers or names and they brought their own first aid men obviously anticipating resistance to their entry.

I must protest vigorously that the activities of the Canberra Police among the young people of north Canberra in particular bear no relation to the law but rather is a continuous aggressive personal feud which has been going on for years and getting worse leading to a sad breakdown of social relations and mutual respect between the police force and the public, particularly the young.

The letter continues:

Since the party, my sons and their friends have been continually harrassed by police which appears to be related to the incidents which occurred at the Williamson’s parry in Holroyd Street, Watson. I am deeply concerned for the safety of my children. I have complained twice before but with no success.

I would be pleased if you could send a copy of this letter to the Attorney-General and or Mr Ellicott as the Minister responsible for the Canberra Police.

Following my receipt of this letter, in an interview in my office, three young people also corroborated this evidence and gave additional information which I will briefly summarise. They said that the police received no provocation from them but seemed to know in advance who would be at the party and were looking for specific people. Police cars, an ambulance, a medical team and paddy wagons were parked around the corner from Holroyd Street before the police entered the premises. The police did not wear badges or any kind of identification. They photographed garden tools which they claimed were used as weapons against them by the guests at the party. A man who was asleep in the back of his car was dragged out. The tyres of visitors’ cars were slashed or let down. Other women in addition to Jenny and Kim received similar treatment. Their clothes were torn. Policewomen were present but stayed outside.

Since the party the police have said that they will get everyone who was present. Justin, his brothers and others have been warned by the police not to go anywhere on their own or they will be picked up and taken to the police cells and bashed. One policeman touched his gun while making this threat. Justin has since been subjected to further police harrassment which, according to him and to a witness, was completely unjustified and without provocation.

These are extremely serious allegations. They are consistent with previous complaints, which I have received over the last 12 to 18 months, that some police officers are conducting an orchestrated vendetta against a group of young people in my electorate. Some of these young people have police records but they have paid their penalty in relation to these matters. It does not justify putting labels on these young citizens and treating them as permanent criminals. Nor does it justify continual harrassment, intimidation and vendettas of violence against young people in our community. Such actions can only lead to serious social conflict and loss of mutual respect by the public for the police force and by the police for the civil liberties and privacy of citizens.

I am making representations to the responsible Minister and to the Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Sir Colin Woods, to conduct an inquiry into these allegations so that important relations of mutual respect between the community and the police force will not continue to be at risk, as I believe they will be as long as this situation is allowed to continue

I am most concerned that the citizens who live in my electorate, whether young, old, male or female, should be able to go about their daily activities and to lead their private lives without harassment, intimidation or threats from those whose duty it is to protect their privacy and civil rights. It is quite likely that these young people at the 2 1st birthday party may have been noisy and high spirited. They may have been disturbing their neighbours. No doubt all of us are disturbed by our neighbours from time to time, even if it is only a result of the use of a noisy lawn mower. I repeat that that in no way justifies the kinds of actions which have been the subject of these serious allegations which have been made against our police force.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

-The State Grants (Roads) Act 1977 terminates on 30 June of this year and I wish to use this opportunity, during the grievance debate, of placing in the parliamentary record some of the points that should be carefully considered by this Government in embarking upon a new three-year Act, which would commence on 1 July 1980. 1 do this in a political atmosphere in which taxpayers and constituents would like to see some identifiable expenditure on appropriate projects from the crude oil levy. What better way to achieve that identification than by making a greater contribution to the maintenance and construction of those roads that are the responsibility of the Federal Government. I list road works as warranting one of the highest priorities for the expenditure of oil levy revenue.

My first point relates to the program itself. I urge that there be a rolling program for three years in order to provide continuity, instead of the present fixed three-year agreement. Secondly, as I examine the program for the last three years, under the original 1977 Act, I draw the attention of the House particularly to Schedule 1 , which sets out a total appropriation of funds for all national highways in those three years, of $625m. One cannot help inferring from the allocation that it was based too strongly on a per capita basis and too little on a needs basis. For instance, the figures for the final year, 1979-80, show an expenditure of $81m in New South Wales, $39m in Victoria and $47m in Queensland. Compare this ratio of 49:23:28 with the needs of these States, as demonstrated by the length of declared national highway in each. According to the Parliamentary Legislative Research Service in 1977 the figures were: New South Wales, 1,335 kilometres; Victoria 690 kilometres and Queensland 3,922 kilometres. The resulting ratios, 22:23:66, demonstrate, when compared with the ratio based on funds available, a grave disproportion in allocation when compared with need. Queensland, with three times the length of national highway in New South Wales, receives $34m less than does that State. The formula to assess the distribution of funds must take into account not only the population but also the needs of people, the opening up of industry and commerce, the development of our mining, rural and tourist industries and also the wealth that is returned to Australia from those industries, oriented as they are mainly to exports.

For instance, the division of Dawson, which I represent, is the fourth largest in Queensland. It has 1 10,000 constituents, who pay more personal taxation than the citizens of any other division in Queensland. It has some 700 kilometres of national highways and from its coal, primary and tourist industries provides 7 per cent of Australia’s export wealth. The federal highways and the former developmental roads are heavily used in the production of that wealth and in the development of those industries but are inadequate to their needs.

Yet the national highway, the trade and tourist artery to north Queensland, which passes through the division of Dawson, is represented, in a section between Marlborough and St Lawrence by some 100 kilometres of dirt track. In 1979, in a period of 42 days, the alternative route around this section was closed for some 34 days by wet weather. In these circumstances, how can the nation and the States develop and exploit their natural assets? From my own assessment of a particular length of this highway on which I frequently travel- incidentally, it does not include the 100 kilometres of dirt track- I found that, of a total length of 397 kilometres, 54 required reconstruction, 98 required major maintenance, 28 were in the course of reconstruction and 217, or about half that length, had only a fair surface. But that section was bridged in many cases with narrow bridges capable only of single lane traffic.

The other factor that requires to be assessed in the allocation of funds for national highways is that of defence. The highways through northern Australia to our most vulnerable boundaries, as far as attack is concerned, would not be trafficable to military equipment. The only defence protection such roads offer to southern Australia es in the fact that an invader would also find the roads untrafficable. To some people in the north, the state of their roads is evidence of a stillexistent Brisbane Defence Line mentality. I acknowledge that in 1974 upon the acceptance of responsibility for national highways the Federal Government would have found the Queensland roads in a state worse than others, on the average, throughout the nation. They remain, in comparison to other States, in that deprived state.

I suggest that there should be a different allocation of the funds that are presently available. More funds should be granted to those States with obvious needs and less to those States which use such funds to duplicate facilities that are already first class. It is a common saying in Northern Queensland that the further south one travels in Australia the better become the roads while the further north one goes the better becomes the fishing.

My third point concerning the formulation of the new Act is that extra funds are not necessarily the only means by which we can achieve better road standards. Over recent years the Commonwealth has allocated funds for roads without imposing conditions on expenditure. Priority of federal highways and subsequent funding are left entirely to the States. I hope that the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) will have regard in the new Act to the expenditure of the funds allocated. For instance, authorities in some States give a higher preference to day labour work than that by private contractors. I am certain that under proper and normal supervision by State authorities a greater length of highway could be constructed, faster and more efficiently, by private contractors.

Figures given on one State would indicate that, of the road funds available in a particular year, 23 per cent was allocated to private contractors, 34 per cent to local government; and 43 per cent to the State’s own authority. My conclusion has been arrived at quite independent of the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors, but I wish to quote from the annual report of that Association for 1978-79. The National President, Mr J. M. Muir, addressed an open letter to all parliamentarians and local government authorities, about which the report has this to say:

The issue was the financing of construction and maintenance of main roads in Australia. Mr Muir pointed out that the bulk of road construction and maintenance is undertaken by day labour. This, he argued, is a system in which there is no price competition and no sanctions of time and cost as there are for the private contractor. In one.Australian state, with an annual expenditure of over $200m on main roads, only 20 per cent of this expenditure is subject to price competition.

Mr McVeigh:

-What State is that?

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– It does not mention the State, but it is different from the State I mentioned before. The report continues:

Only that 20 per cent is tested in the market place. The dominance of day labour is the more surprising when it is realised that independent studies have shown that competitive contracting can gain at least a third more construction than day labour for every dollar spent. Therefore, if the contractor’s proportion of total expenditure on roads increased from 20 per cent to, say, SO per cent, we would gain at least 1 1 per cent more road construction for the same outgoings. In money terms, this would amount to more than $20m dollars more efficiently spent in the state referred to above. It is quite clear that more efficient road construction and maintenance must flow from price competition through the calling of tenders for all new construction, reconstruction and maintenance of major Australian roads.

I suggest that a condition of the new Act should be that we allocate more of the funds that are available and that these be made available to private contractors. A further point is that the formula of assessment should take into account the ravages of the weather and the damage the elements do to roads throughout northern Australia. The high rainfall and the heat demand a special construction and extra maintenance to ensure that the road systems are always open and available in the north. I believe that this is a fact that has not been taken into account in the formula in the past. I hope that it will be in the future.

The last point is to bring the developmental road category back under direct federal responsibility. The change effected three years ago by the inclusion of this category in rural arterial meant a considerable slow-down in the construction of this very necessary road system. A report entitled An assessement of the Australian Road System: 1 979 ‘ by the Bureau of Transport Economics calculates on page 151, table 6.19, part 1, a loss to Queensland, to the advantage of all other States, over the years 1974-75 and 1978-79 amounting to some $2 13m when compared with the funds that would have been available if the allocation had been made on an economic, efficient basis. I appreciate that there are many qualifications in that assessment, but I do urge this Government and the Minister to be careful that in future allocations the State of Queensland is not again denied its proper entitlement. There have been suggestions that the road debate is one which surfaces only in an election year. The necessity to speak now is certainly political only in the sense that the current Act terminates on 30 June 1980.

The road debate has been continuous, and it is now urgent. “

Mr COHEN (Robertson) (4.8 j-The vast majority of Australians have a great affection for the kangaroo. It is one of our national symbols, if not our major national symbol. It appears on our coat of arms, amongst many other symbols of Australia. Although knowledge of Australia overseas is very limited, one can be certain that, if nothing else, the majority of people know that the kangaroo and Australia are synonymous. It is therefore not surprising that any threat to the kangaroo will cause considerable outcry, both in Australia and overseas. I must confess that the idea of killing any kangaroo is quite abhorrent to me. One might call that an emotional response, but I am sure it is a view shared by millions of Australians and by many more millions of people overseas. One may argue that there is no difference between killing a kangaroo and lulling sheep or cattle, assuming that there are plenty of both. However, there would be a different response, and I think the Government should recognise that.

Abhorrent as I find the killing of kangaroos, I recognise that if the number of kangaroos grows to the point where it is a threat to the livelihood of vast numbers of farmers, and if at the same time the species themselves are not threatened, then reluctantly I and many others believe that a controlled and monitored program of culling would be accepted. However, we do want some watertight assurances before such a program will be acceptable. During the past few months the question of the killing of the kangaroo has gathered momentum in the Australian media. Because of this, I have asked the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation to hold a public inquiry so that the people of Australia can ascertain the full facts.

There are about 45 species of kangaroos and wallabies in Australia; 13 of these are harvested commercially or culled under State management programs, and nine more are listed as being threatened with extinction. The Federal and State governments have to reconcile programs where they sanction the exploitation of certain species and yet consider means to preserve other species in danger of extinction. Obviously, in order to carry out such a program information is required concerning habitats, population size, and biology of the various kangaroo species. If the States and the Commonwealth had such information they would be able to produce reliable management programs stating what sorts of measures needed to be taken to make sure that the population of a particular species was maintained at a level high enough to ensure its continued survival and yet not so high as to cause damage to farmers or a massive die-off in drought.

The first thing that the Australian Labor Party wants is an effective national monitoring program that reports regularly to the national Parliament. Most of the information is presently supplied by the States, and their programs vary in quality and quantity. Claims and counterclaims that are now coming from farmers ‘ organisations and conservation groups are completely contradictory. We need a body to monitor the kangaroo population whose reports will be beyond question.

Mr Katter:

– I will give it to you.

Mr COHEN:

-I am delighted that the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who is known more for his resemblance to a wombat than a kangaroo, should offer to give me information. With all due respect, and I have great respect for the honourable member, I would like slightly more scientific information than he is likely to be able to produce. Nevertheless, if we do set up a board, I will be sure he is on it. The body ought to have on it people who do not have a vested interest in proving a case. It ought to include reputable scientists and members of State wildlife departments, as well as representatives of farmer organisations and conservation groups. It could be funded easily by a levy on all kangaroo skins or meat killed and tagged for commercial purposes and exported overseas. It would distinguish what species of and in what areas kangaroos are in such plague proportions that a reduction in their numbers would not threaten in any way their continued existence in a particular region. It would also recommend substantial fines for those who breach the law with regard to killing.

It is clear that some sections of the Australian bush that were settled years ago for cattle grazing are marginal in good times and quite unprofitable in dry or drought times, which incidentally we seem to be experiencing at the moment. These areas should never have been allowed to be farmed, and the monitoring body should study these regions and recommend to both State and Federal governments the areas that should be purchased back from farmers and turned over to wildlife habitats. I am sure that many farmers in these areas would be happy to get out of farming. Once such a monitoring program has been introduced and shown to be effective, I am confident that Australia will accept a controlled culling program. At present there is strong opposition amongst conservation groups to the United States’ ban on the import of kangaroo products. Their fears are well founded because they believe that if the American market is opened up again, whilst there may not be over-culling at the moment, the expansion of the United States market would bring pressure on the State governments to lift killing quotas. We would then be placed back in the position we were in during the 1960s when the outcry about kangaroo exploitation led to the House of Representatives inquiry into the threat to the kangaroo. Millions of kangaroos were slaughtered as pests or for the skin and meat. In 1964-65, 1.4 million skins were exported, and in 1967-68 four million kilograms of kangaroo meat were shipped overseas. We do not know what will happen if the United States ban is lifted. It has been claimed that only two States, New South Wales and South Australia, have adequate methods for estimating the population of kangaroos. This could be true since Queensland, which claims the highest population of kangaroos, has estimated the kangaroo population in that State to be between 1 1 million and 30 million animals.

Mr Katter:

– Absolutely.

Mr COHEN:

-With due respect to the honourable member, that is a hell of a wide range of estimates. Most of the States which allow harvesting of kangaroos commercially set their quotas for 1979 at 15 per cent of the estimated population. Are quotas of this level likely to reduce the population levels or will this be a sustainable yield? Are regulations concerning minimum size of kangaroos being adhered to? Will the market forces place pressure on governments to increase quotas if the United States market opens up? Are protected species being shot by mistake on properties? What will happen if the long-range forecaster Lennox Walker is correct and Australia is in for a long period of drought during the 1980s? If numbers start to drop dramatically what control will be introduced to ensure that numbers and species can be built up again? Questions such as these must be answered to prove to the Australian public as well as to the American Government that the Australian wildlife authorities have effective and comprehensive management programs. With the quota for 1979 being set at 2.768 million kangaroos, mainly reds and greys, it is small wonder that a section of the public is concerned about the long term survival, even though conservative estimates of the kangaroo population place their numbers in Australia at about 25 million. Doubts about the programs are raised when reports appear in the media such as that in the Age on Monday, 3 1 March in which a kangaroo shooter in Queensland decried the lack of adequate government controls. He said:

They supply a permit to any bastard. A shooter must be his own conservationist. If he doesn’t preserve the young and the breeders hell destroy his stock. It’s these bloody weekend clowns that cause all the trouble.

Nobody wants to see the ridiculous situation in which kangaroos are in such plague proportions that they are threatening the livelihood of thousands of farmers. I emphasise that. Nobody wants to see the situation in which farmers are shooting kangaroos and allowing their carcases to rot. That would be a grotesque waste of resources and protein. However, equally we do not wish to see the kangaroos exploited by vested interests who would kill anything if a buck could be made out of it. The result could be devastation of the kangaroo. It is up to the Government to provide the nation with an effective monitoring campaign that meets the standard acceptable to conservation groups and farming interests alike. In that way we can get a bipartisan approach which will satisfy everybody.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

-As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I know that we will be taking up the suggestions made by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) in respect of the inquiry he proposed regarding the slaughtering of kangaroos and the implications of that action. However, I want to use the occasion of the grievance debate today to raise a matter which is of grave concern to thousands of people within the electorate of La Trobe. The subject that I want to discuss is television reception. I have had a great deal of support from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) on this question. That support and interest has taken place over quite a number of years.

The matter that I want to discuss in the Parliament today on behalf of the constituents of La Trobe who are affected in this way concerns the difficulty they have always had in obtaining adequate television reception. I have been looking forward to raising this matter in the Federal Parliament and I believe that Grievance Day affords me the best opportunity in that regard. Basically the position is that there are certainly thousands- I hesitate to say tens of thousands- of households in the electorate of La Trobe for whom the television signal is thoroughly inadequate. This is hot a new problem. This has been a feature of the Dandenongs areas ever since television was introduced into Victoria. I believe that people living in or adjacent to the great cities of this country have a right- indeed, a reasonable expectation- of access to first-class television reception. Clearly that is not the case at present and, as I have said, it never has been the case for people living in the Dandenongs.

Until recently it has been almost impossible for people living in the Dandenongs to receive Channels 7 and 9. Reception of Channels 0 and 2 was obtainable in varying degrees. However, since the change from Channel 0 to Channel 10 it has become evident that many of those people who had marginal reception of Channel 0 can no longer get reception from Channel 10. When the change to Channel 10 was completed I immediately took action on this matter. I sought the assistance of people living in the electorate by asking them to contact me if they were finding that the change from Channel 0 to Channel 10 had resulted in a deterioration or a loss of their signals. At my electorate office in Boronia I have received hundreds of letters and telephone calls in reply to this call. I would like to incorporate in Hansard a list of the place names and towns from which people have advised me that the television reception is far from adequate.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 1622

QUESTION

PLACES THAT HAVE REPORTED POOR TELEVISION RECEPTION

Belgrave, Boronia, Clematis, Fern Tree Gully and Upper Fern Tree Gully, Ferny Creek, Monbulk, Olinda, Sassafras, Sherbrooke, Selby, Tecoma, The Basin, The Patch, Upwey

Mr BAILLIEU:

-I thank the honourable member for Robertson for paying attention to my speech and for allowing me to incorporate a list of those place names. The list will be of vital importance to the representatives of the Postal and Telecommunications Department who, at the insistence of the Minister, are doing research in the area as a matter of great urgency. Of course, the question is: What can be done to correct this situation? As I have said previously, I am delighted with the interest that the Minister has taken in regard to the problem. I might add that the Minister has already taken action in respect of certain other areas in the Upper Yarra Valley where a similar problem has existed for quite some time. I am pleased that my colleague the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer) has been able to advise the residents of Marysville that tenders will be called almost immediately for the installation of translators to improve the reception in that area.

My colleague, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon), has had similar advice in respect of the residents of Warburton. I would like to think that when Warburton was in the electorate of La Trobe I was instrumental in having that study commenced. I am just delighted that the Minister has been able to take some definite action in that regard. I might add that the question of television reception in Warburton has been a festering sore for a great many individuals in this Parliament. I remember that Mr John Jess started the file going many years ago. It went through successive members until the honourable member for McMillan got the pleasure of being able to advise residents in that area that translators would be installed.

The question as to what might best be done to improve the reception is, of course, a matter of some technicality. The various measures which will be considered by the Department include the installation of translator stations, the installation of a cable television system or a combination of the two. Only rime will tell what best suits the area in the Dandenongs. The geographic characteristics of the area are unique. It is made up of escarpments, gullies and ridge lines and all sorts of other physical barriers, all of which serve to make the translation of a television signal very difficult indeed.

Recently we held a public meeting in the shire of Sherbrooke. I might add that it was held on a night when the petrol restrictions were at thenmost severe. Nevertheless, there was a turn-up of in excess of 300 local residents at that meeting. It was a spectacular success. Mr Frank Waldron of the Postal and Telecommunications Department attended and gave an explanation to those who attended- I might add that I thought he did a superb job- of the difficulties that presently exist and some of the measures that might be taken to correct the problem. However, the message I relayed to the Minister in regard to this whole question is one of urgency. I do not believe that we can tolerate a situation any longer whereby people living within a few miles of the main metropolitan television transmitters find that they cannot get an adequate television signal.

I have dedicated my immediate political career to getting a commitment from the Government to see that action is taken to correct this problem. I am most anxious that the Minister should be in a position, before many more weeks have elapsed, to be able to give us some guidelines as to how best the problem will be tackled and overcome. Clearly, it is within the limits of existing technology to see that each and every resident has access to a perfect television signal on all channels. I recommend that course to the Government.

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

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

-Mr Deputy Speaker, the last time I spoke in a grievance debate was when I came back to this Parliament in September 1978. 1 then grieved on behalf of all the electors in Werriwa, pointing to the effect on them of the Government’s crazy economic policies and the consequent unemployment, the cutbacks in welfare and housing funds and the general downgrading of electorates such as mine. Of course, since that time they have had to put up with higher petrol prices. Each person who travels to work by car is paying about $5 or $6 a day. The unemployment situation has not improved. At that time the number of unemployed in the electorate of Werriwa was 6,270. A year later it was 6,830 and it is now 7,600, but I understand that if any unemployed person cares to ring the office of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) he or she can get a job.

Today I do not want to talk about all the electors in Werriwa. I want to talk about a handful of people who have come to me since I have been the honourable member for Werriwa. They are concerned with what has now become known as the agent orange issue. It has been only a handful of people, about five or six. I would like to tell the House how I got involved in this issue. The first fellow who came to me said that he had problems with his liver. He had a whole heap of symptoms. I just made an ordinary representation on his behalf. Eventually I was informed that this poor fellow was suffering from Korsakov syndrome. That is a euphemistic medical way of saying that he is a liar and a drunkard. I let the matter go at that. I did not represent the man very well, as a matter of fact. I let it go at that. I took the information on board. I made a representation and I received a reply. That fellow has since come back to me on this matter and he has since got some form of pension.

Just casually, I put a question on notice about the general issue because I knew of some studies on this matter in Victoria. There was some publicity at that time about the effects of agent orange in Vietnam on United States servicemen in particular. Since that time there has been a deluge of material on this matter. There has simply been article after article. There has been sustained research on it by various people in this House, particularly those in the office of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding). So there is a veritable bounty of information on this whole question. That is why I am wondering why the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) seems to think that we need to have an inquiry to find out what the effects of these chemicals are.

Let us, for a start, just say what we do know. What we do know is that between 1961 and 1971, the United States sprayed some six million acres in Vietnam with approximately 107 million lbs of herbicides. There are 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T and various combinations. We have agents blue, white, orange and purple. Some of the other chemicals which the United States freely admits having used are picloram and cacodylic acid, which contains arsenic. In addition, it used arsenic compounds, cyanides, DDT, dinitro orthocresol, maleic hydrazide and a synthetic herbicide known as CMU. So the list goes on. Everyone knows that these chemicals have been dropped on Vietnam. People were there. One Australian Vietnam veteran who was stationed at Nui Dat for about a year claimed that he actually saw the area sprayed from the air once a fortnight. But he did not know what it was sprayed with. They probably thought it was malathion, which is an organic phosphate compound and an insecticide. It was being used in the grain silos of this country until the insects developed some resistance to it.

I really want to know what all this is about because for a long time we have known from medical literature what are the effects of these chemicals and herbicides. There is no need to set up an epidemiological inquiry to find out what these chemicals do to people. Let us go back, for example, to the Medical Journal of Australia- an eminently responsible medical journal- of 6 June 1959. In dealing with a case involving malathion, it gives the reactions with respect to the central nervous system- vomiting, diarrhoea, pinpoint pupils, sweating, et cetera, and so the list goes on. At least the effects of malathion have been set down. If we go to the Lancet of 24 June 1961 we find a series of examinations of people affected by malathion. Its effects on the central nervous system are set out there. I will not go through them but they are similar to the symptoms of people who have come forward to me and to other members of this House, people who have been in Vietnam. So the symptoms and the effects are well known. The Minister has quoted from the World Health Organisation report. In some of the statements in that report there is reference to TCDD. It states:

Chloracne and liver impairment, formerly thought to be caused by chlorophenols, were shown essentially to be due to TCDD . . .

The authority cited is ‘Hoffman, 1957’. On page 80 of volume 15 of the 1977 WHO report there is set out a table of the toxic effects of TCDD in man. It goes through the dermatological effects, the internal effects, and the neurological and psychiatric effects. I cannot give all the references so I seek permission from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) who is at the table to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr KERIN:

– There it is. All the effects of these substances on people have been known. This information relates back to 1977. But the references- for example, liver damage- go back to Bauer, 1961. So it goes right through to 1973. There is a whole heap of references, eminently responsible medical references, laboratory analyses of the effects recognised and known for a long time. I do not know what it is all about. I think that perhaps the Prime Minister, the present Minister for Foreign Affairs and the present Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) who were the responsible Ministers at the time are not so much worried about their role in the matter, but about the fact that if we say something too straightforward the United States of America will be worried because massive legal suits on this whole matter are currently being dealt with in that country.

The Minister says that he will accept claims in the meantime, but why is it that some people in my electorate are being knocked back when it is quite clear what the effects of these herbicides are? The Government has set up this epidemiological study which is not open to submissions. The Vietnam Veterans Action Association probably shares the view that this is one way of looking at the problem, but the study is not going to give us answers in a form that will be of direct value to the people who have been affected. Frankly, I think that it is fiction to say that the study is going to take two years. I do not think that such a study will locate the source of the problem. I think that the $2m funding for it is quite ludicrous. As I have said before, the study group is not open to submissions. The Minister said that a small group of independent scientists will assess and endorse the methodology. We already know what the criticisms are of the methodology and the epidemiological studies.

There are a number of methodological drawbacks. There is only one way of doing this successfully. Let us take these drawbacks formally. The deficiences in this approach to the problem we are looking at would include the failure to choose the most appropriate measures of exposure. There is the failure to account correctly for population mobility. There is ignorance of the true pathogenesis of the disease. There is failure to control compounding factors. There is a failure to follow up the population for a long enough period. There is a failure to avoid bias in subject selection and exposure criteria. And so it goes on. These are traditional, formal objectives to epidemiological studies overall.

Although the Minister says he has received only 200 claims, he is going to look at 60,000 servicemen and 100,000 children. He has not told us what the cohort group- the test group- is that he is going to look at. I assume that that is another 60,000 people. Again, in the context of formal objections to epidemiological studies, where is he going to get those people from? If he is going to get them from agricultural areas they are probably already affected by some of the chemicals that we are looking at. I think that we have a problem on our hands. We have received all the medical and formal evidence. We do know what effect these herbicides and chemicals have on people. Setting up a study of this sort simply avoids dealing with the problem we face at present. It should be quite simple to examine the symptoms coming in on these people, examine the effects of these chemicals on people and to come to some sort of judgment. We should be able to say things with certainty now without the need to set up a study which allegedly is going to take two years but which, to my mind, is simply putting the problem away for that two years at least.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-I want to speak on a matter relating to a land development-Kawana Waters-which is only a short distance from a home which I very fortunately own and have owned for many years on the Sunshine Coast of Queensland which, of course starts some SO or 60 miles north of Brisbane. I did make some comments in the Press about this matter around New Year’s Day. However, I feel it appropriate, as we draw near to the Easter break, to draw the public’s attention once again to the tactics which have been employed by Kawana Estates Pty Ltd in an endeavour to sell its land development at a place called Currimundi in Queensland. At the outset, I must point out that Kawana Estates Pty Ltd has sales offices in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne and on the Sunshine Coast. That means that the people of Sydney and Melbourne particularly are very reliant upon the honesty of the material which is printed for advertising purposes. There are a number of matters on which I will take issue with Kawana Estates Pty Ltd.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hold up for your information a map of the Kawana Waters Currimundi development. You will see from the Chair how Lake Currimundi is depicted here going out into the ocean. There are a number of boats in a marina. The boat marina is a complete fabrication inasmuch as the only boat to get out to sea at Lake Currimundi would be one which was carried across the beach. The lake is not even tidal. Where blue ocean or the entrance to the lake is indicated, it is in fact a huge sandbank which sometimes is up to almost 300 or 400 yards wide. That may be a slight exaggeration, but I will stick safely with at least 200 yards. On the plan there is a special note which informs potential buyers that the maintenance of the canals, broadwater and any other navigable waterways is the responsibility of the Department of Harbours and Marine. If one checks the Acts of Parliament in the State of Queensland, one will learn that it has absolutely nothing to do with the Department of Harbours and Marine. It is a council responsibility. Yet the Kawana Waters developers are giving people information which is completely untrue. The side note to the plan also states in very tiny print.

Depth of water in canals, 60 feet from revetment walls is a minimum of 5 feet at lowest low tide.

The area is not even tidal. How can Kawana Waters have the lowest of a low tide in an area that is not even tidal. The side note further goes on to tell people:

Owners of waterfront allotments are entitled to mooring rights fronting their allotments by applying to the Department of Harbours and Marine.

I do not know who one would ,apply to. Here we have this publication showing’ the beautiful Pacific Ocean - ‘

Mr Peacock:

-The green part? -

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– No, the blue part is the Pacific Ocean. Kawana Waters is promising people mooring areas and yet if one starts to head out to the ocean one ends up on a huge sandbank which is the mouth of this lake.

Mr Peacock:

– How far away from your home is it?

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-It is about 12 blocks. I know the area very well. I have even cut my feet on the rocks in some of the shallow areas. I know this lake intimately. Whilst the Kawana Waters developers claim the lake to be tidal, which is a total misrepresentation, the facts are that the only time the lake ever flows into the sea is if there has been a lot of fain in the area which has built up the pressure behind the sandbanks, if there are huge cyclones which unfortunately we are subjected to from time to time in Queensland or if huge king tides occur. They only occasionally break over the bank. The maps circulated to people living in Sydney or Melbourne hundreds of miles away from the area, give the impression that they will be able to buy a boat and tie it up in their backyard. That is true. But where does one go from here? It is like having a boat in one ‘s own bathroom.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Who is perpetrating this fraud?

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Kawana Waters in Queensland. One reason I have raised this matter is because at Christmas Kawana Waters pulled the plug out of the lake when it filled its canals. One tragedy was that I endeavoured to draw the attention of the Press to most aspects I have covered today but because the matter had not been raised in a parliament members of the Press were frightened of having libel actions brought against them. Understandably, they refrained from printing some of those matters. Kawana Waters has probably overcome the bad publicity of the new year. I just want to remind any potential buyers who might be going up that way during the Easter or May holidays to be very wary. It is not what it is presented to be. Finally on this subject, I make an appeal to any Australian who may not have heard of my complaint on New Year’s Day and around that time, who have bought -

Mr Peacock:

– Everybody heard about it. I think it got a lot of publicity.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The Minister was in Canada’ at the time. Did the complaint reach him there? I am asking any people who have bought land and who feel that they have been misled to let me know. I want to pass thennames on to the Trade Practices Commission. I wrote to the Commission on 2 January, exactly three months ago today. I can only hope that the course of justice is simply a slow affair. I do not want an injustice to be done against the management of Kawana Waters. If it has an explanation I suppose that the Trade Practices Commission has to investigate it thoroughly. I did write to the Commission complaining. I hope that after three months it is on the verge of being able to give me a reply.

There is another subject that I wish to cover briefly. I examined the figures produced recently by the Department of Social Security in Queensland showing us the number of people who received pensions, benefits and family allowances in Queensland. They showed us the numbers on an electorate’ by electorate basis. The figures applied as at 30 June last year. An examination of those figures brings forth a most remarkable feature and that is that my Federal electorate of Fadden has more children and more families than any other Federal electorate in Queensland.

Mr Scholes:

– You are not going to claim credit for that, are you?

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-That has not happened just because I have been there. The Federal electorate of Fadden had 51,000 children at that time, which is double the combination of almost any two Federal electorates in the Brisbane area. It just shows that people like those who live in my electorate and people who live in the country electorates are having bigger families than people in the cities. It would seem that the future of Queensland and, indeed, the future of our great country, is very much in the hands of the people who live in the country and on the outskirts of the big cities. I want to pay tribute to the people in my electorate for making such a valuable contribution to this nation.

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

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-In this grievance Day debate I wish to raise a matter which I have raised before and one or two other matters. On a number of occasions I have raised the question of the actions of the Department of Social Security in reclaiming from members of the Army Reserve unemployment benefit payments which have been paid to them in lieu of moneys received from the Reserve in payment for services. I have mentioned before- I mention it only briefly today- that for persons who are employed the moneys received from Reserve service is tax-free income and is therefore deemed to be income outside all other considerations. Those who are serving in the Reserve, but who are unfortunately temporarily or otherwise unemployed, are discouraged from further service while they are unemployed by being penalised in retrospect for moneys received while they are in the Reserve.

I wish to raise another matter which is on exactly the same lines and which, I think, is something with which the Commonwealth Government cannot continue to live. I refer to the question of compensation for injuries which occur during Reserve service. Even if a member is on only a two-day camp it is as possible for him to receive a permanent injury as it is at any other time. But under the rules as they currently apply the payment of compensation allowed to such a person is limited to a period of six months. That is quite wrong. A person, if he is injured in any occupation where service of the Commonwealth or service of his country is involved, should be entitled to full compensation for an injury in the same circumstances as a person who is working for the Commonwealth or who is a permanent member of the forces. I am not talking about injuries which are not related to service, but about those which are directly related. I know of one instance in which in fact other members of the Reserve are virtually taking the hat around to maintain a person who was seriously injured, because no compensation payments are available for him. I shall say no more about that subject. But I make the point that there is a considerable area for review in the conditions of services in the Army Reserve so that disabilities which currently exist and which have probably existed for many years can be removed. Not only will that encourage people to serve but also it will indicate that we are serious about wanting people to serve.

The other matters I wish to raise are of a more domestic nature. Yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) made mention of the fact that a full-time passport office would be made available in the city of Newcastle. I wish to raise the question of Geelong which is a comparable city, where passport issuing facilities were discontinued at the time of the transfer of that operation from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to the Department of Foreign Affairs. The situation at the moment is that even application forms for passports are not available in the Geelong area through any official source. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, as I understand it, has been denied supplies of application forms. It cannot process them. In order to provide some service my office obtains forms in bulk and issues them to people who want them.

But that is not a satisfactory arrangement. There are in excess of 30,000 migrants in the area. In fact, close to 30 per cent of the total population is a migrant population. Those people are very keen to travel overseas. They are extremely upset when they find that they have to write away and endure very long waits for passports which should be able to be processed in the area. There is already a full-time immigration office in Geelong. I do not think it would be difficult for the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to come to an arrangement whereby passport facilities could be made available to people without their having to spend a full day in Melbourne waiting for the issue of a passport or else taking the risk of writing, and hoping that they will get the passport in time for them to travel three months hence. There are two other matters which I want to raise. In Question Time this morning the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) made reference to retraining and job opportunities. I wish to indicate that training is relevant, only if jobs exist. The most recent figures for employment in the Geelong area indicate that for juniors, whilst there were in excess of 2,000 with various forms of qualification registered for employment, job registrations were nil. Jobs which were not registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service may have been available in limited quantities but the fact is that irrespective of what forms of training and what forms of schooling one has undergone if the number of job opportunities registered indicates that no jobs are available, then all the training schemes in the world are meaningless. If our society is to remain as it is there have to be opportunities for young people to enter the work force. Unfortunately this matter seems to be very much a secondary consideration in all aspects of economic policy as this Government enunciates it. It is causing permanent damage to a whole generation of Australians.

It is no good making speeches or uttering pious words. The fact is that these young people, at the start of their lives, are being denied their opportunities to live the sort of life that every one of us lives. They are being deprived of full citizenship in this country. Some action of a positive nature on that matter is more than needed now. While the Government ignores the long term effects of this sort of policy and continues to promote the dole bludger image which has done so much damage to the morale of so many young people, it is alienating a generation of Australians. It is a most divisive approach which is designed purely to take away any sympathy for these unemployed people in order to remove pressure on the Government to do something about them. It is a cynical policy and one which should not continue if we are genuine about wanting Australia to be a country which is unified and which has a single purpose; that is, to make the country a better place.

I wish to talk about one or two other minor matters. Employment opportunities in at least two industries upon which my electorate is vitally dependent- the motor car industry and the textile industry- are under threat at the moment. They are under threat in the textile industry in particular because of uncertainty about the future of the industry, given the type of interim report which was produced by the Industries Assistance Commission, and uncertainty about future actions of the Government. Whilst this matter remains unresolved, investment in the industry will not increase and confidence in the industry for future investment cannot be developed. Too many people in non-metropolitan areas of Australia are employed by this industry for this situation to be allowed to continue or for it to be taken lightly. It is easy to say that we will have to go through the processes of obtaining a report, but the damage that can be done in that period will be immense unless some action is taken by the Government to give long term confidence to the industry.

The car industry is another problem. It is a problem which is of very serious consequence to employment throughout the whole of the country. From the point of view of my electorate, I want to mention only one matter. The Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd is extremely competitive in seeking Commonwealth orders. Some time ago that company obtained an order to resupply Commonwealth cars. The order cannot commence to be fulfilled because of an argument about whether plastic petrol tanks are acceptable to the Commonwealth Government. To my knowledge there is no justifiable reason for the Commonwealth’s not accepting those tanks. In fact, all the evidence would suggest that they are far safer than metal tanks in both the short and long term and especially in the event of an accident. The Commonwealth Fire Board, which comes under the Department of Administrative Services, has held up the approval of deliveries of these vehicles. If this type of tank is to be rejected, I plead with the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) to examine this matter and make a decision quickly so that other arrangements can be made. If it is not to be rejected- I think safety indicates that plastic tanks should be installed- I hope that the matter will be cleared up as quickly as possible.

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

Mr JULL:
Bowman

-Australia has been deeply involved in the Antarctic since early this century. In fact, Australian explorers did much to open up the southern continent. I am sure that the names of Mawson, Rymill and Wilkins are great names in the history of this area. The exploits of those explorers certainly stand alongside those of explorers of Australia, such as Burke and Wills, as men who have achieved very great things. In 1947 Australia established the Australian Antarctic Division in the Department of External Affairs. In 1954 our first Antarctic station was established at Mawson. Of course, we now have stations at Mawson, Davis and Casey on Macquarie Island.

In 1957, as part of the International Geophysical Year, Australia, along with 1 1 other countries, negotiated a treaty to regulate international activity in the area. On 1 December 1959 the Antarctic Treaty was signed. This Treaty comes up for review in 1991. 1 think that we all should be aware that Australia has always claimed validity to almost half of the continent of Antarctica. I believe that this Parliament must press for more activity in this vital part of the world if Australia is to continue that claim on this resource-rich part of the world. The area is rich in energy resources and in food, which is evident by the rash of eastern bloc fishing ships operating in the area. Already the Third World has asked that the area be declared an internationalised area. We must ask ourselves whether this means that there will be open slather on the particular resources of that area.

The Antarctic Research Policy Advisory Committee was established in February 1979 to review Australia’s scientific effort in the Antarctic and to advise the Government on priority areas for scientific and technological research. The Government asked the Committee to place particular emphasis on research into the potential resources of the region and the possible environmental consequences of this exploitation. There were three areas in which it was felt that future scientific research should be undertaken. They were the living and mineral resources and the environmental affect on their exploitation; the effect of the Antarctic on our climate, weather and oceanic circulation in the southern ocean area, particularly as it relates to Australia; and taking advantage of the special opportunities afforded by the unique aspects of the Antarctic

I am pleased that the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) is in the House this afternoon. He has accepted the major recommendations of the Antarctic Research Policy Advisory Committee. That report was put down in November 1979. 1 believe that he should be congratulated for moving ahead in this most vital area. I think we should also point out that any action that is taken must be taken fast. The Soviet Union is making no bones about its interest in the region. Yet another Russian base was opened in the Antarctic on 10 March of this year. But what worries me is what happens when the Treaty is renegotiated in 1991 if we have not fully played our role in this area of concern.

In many respects we are now well behind a number of the nations involved in the development there. For example, what has happened to the proposal for Australia to have its own scientific research and supply ships to service our bases and our staff there? We should be asking ourselves just where is the design for those ships and when will construction begin? Why have we not moved into providing air links to our bases there and building runways that can be serviced by Australian aeroplanes and Australian crews? Why are we still dependent on New Zealand and the United States of America in this area? I believe that we must move quickly in providing the funds needed for further research to establish Australia’s tangible commitment to the region.

The Advisory Committee points out in chapter 7 of its report that the resources available have been spread very thinly over a number of disciplines and that there is now a great need to provide continuity of research and co-ordination of activities. I believe that there is very real evidence to support a dramatic addition to the funds that are already provided for the Antarctic activities by Australia and that we should be making the way to allocate those funds right now. Certainly other nations are making sure of securing their claims. I am sure that we have all read Press reports over recent years of Argentina, for example, sending pregnant women to the area to have their babies there so that those children can claim Antarctic citizenship for Argentina. We may think that that is extreme, but the Argentine is making no bones about its possible claims in 1991.

There is no doubt that the Soviet Union is also making claims in this area. It now has 10 bases there. Some of those bases are on Australian territory. In fact, the Soviet Union now has bases encircling the entire continent. The Russians are also reported to be already exploiting the area with experimental fishing for krill and other fish and, of course, Russia recognises that Antarctica is most likely to contain large oil and gas fields. Whaling and seal harvesting are also under way by the eastern bloc countries. We have only 10 years to establish Australia’s presence. It will obviously take some time, probably some years, before our own ships for supply and marine science studies are decided upon and finally constructed. It will be some time before our own air services with specially equipped ski aircraft and trained crew for the Antarctic can be brought into service. I believe that it is the responsibility of each and every member of this Parliament to support the Minister for Science and the Environment in pressing for our increased activity and, where possible, to visit the bases and see just what work is being done by the Australians in that part of the world.

At all times we should pay a very great tribute to the men who are making many sacrifices indeed in serving Australia in their research in the Antarctic. I know that the previous Minister for Science and the Environment created great interest in the Antarctic region. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer), who is in the House today, is one of those people who, along with Senator Townley and ex-Senator Devitt, visisted one of the Australian bases in the Antarctic. It surprises me that the Opposition, in its policy, has only two or three lines concerning the Antarctic. This is an area of very great concern. I trust that the Government, under the new Minister, will not make that sort of off-the-cuff reference to the Antarctic and that each and every honourable member will undertake a commitment to that particular part of the world; a commitment to the people who are prepared to serve Australia very seriously indeed and will support the Minister in all his efforts to gain the true recognition that the work in the Antarctic deserves.

Mr HUMPHREYS:
Griffith

-Today I wish to grieve for the millions of animals that are tortured and killed in the name of beauty. This year- as in many other years- millions of animals will suffer and die at the hands of scientists in their laboratory experiments. To my mind most of the experiments are appalling. Others seem downright cruel, being conducted for essentially frivolous reasons. Let me explain some of the cosmetic testing methods used on animals such as rabbits, dogs, guinea pigs, monkeys et cetera. Firstly, we have the skin irritant tests that are carried out on animals which are immobilised in restraint devices. Patches of fur or hair are removed by shaving or abrading. When the skin is abraded abrasive tape is pressed firmly to the animal’s body and is then removed. By repeating this technique layers of skin can be removed. Irritants such as astringents and after shave lotions then are applied to the sensitive tissues. The area is covered for one or two days before inspection. Reactions include damage resembling severe chemical burns.

Secondly, we have the eye toxicity test. This is often used for shampoo testing. The concentrated substance is instilled into the eyes of rabbits. Frequently it is dripped into the eyes over a period of” several days. The rabbit’s heads are immobilised in clamp-like devices and their eyes may be kept open with metal clips and adhesive tape. Eye damage includes severe swelling, discharge and blistering, sometimes leading to the destruction of the cornea.

Thirdly, we have also the LD50 toxicity test. Force feeding is commonplace when testing lipsticks, hair dyes and face powders. The object is to determine the dosage level at which half of the animals die. LD50 equals lethal doses in SO per cent. A massive volume of cosmetic material is forced down the animals’ throats through tubes. Often their internal organs become blocked and rupture. I feel quite sure that all honourable gentlemen will not find it hard to understand why the tests that I have just mentioned are known as ‘agony tests’. I find it unbelievable that in order to test cosmetics and toiletries many thousands or monkeys, dogs, cats and other animals die each year. Those animals not lucky enough to die are left horribly maimed and often blind. Of course, the argument is that if animal experimentation helps to save human life, or prolongs human life, it must be worth it.

Until recently this is a view that I have taken. After reading reports in the national Press and books on man’s inhumanity to animals my views have changed considerably. The argument that one may prolong human life does not apply in the field of cosmetics. Testing is popular because manufacturers wish to cover themselves against the risk of prosecution. Legally it gives them more plausibility if, by citing tests, they can show evidence of their concern for the consumer. It is incredible that in this day and age supposedly modern vivisection can be so cruel and largely useless. For example, a drug that is safe for an animal can be lethal to a human and vice versa. For several years thalidomide was force fed to thousands of dogs, cats, mice and rats and to as many as ISO strains of rabbits. As a result it was pronounced totally safe. Only the humans suffered. Equally, what is lethal to animals can be great for humans. A classic case is penicillin. It kills guinea pigs.

I am reminded of a story that an old friend told me of how he found an injured cat on the roadside. He decided to take it to the animal shelter and he was appalled to see another cat there horribly scarred. It had been used in laboratory experiments. If a man whips a horse in the United States he faces a stiff penalty but if he wants to find out how many blows are needed to kill a horse, under the pretext of scientific research, he can club to death 100 horses. I move away from laboratory testing for the moment to have a look at another form of animal cruelty associated with the cosmetic industry.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am going to give up wearing lipstick.

Mr HUMPHREYS That would be a good idea. Many wild animals are killed or captured and kept caged so that the hunters can obtain distinctive body substances for use in perfumes and cosmetics. The extraction methods used on those animals that are kept caged often are nothing less than torture. In some cases the animals are endangered species. Honourable members all know that the favourite book of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) last year was ‘The Endangered Species’. One of the most sought after animal ingredients is musk, a fixative used in the production of perfumes. It is obtained from the Louisiana musk rat, the Alaskan musk ox and the Asian musk deer. Musk is a hormone which has an aroma and is used by these animals for territorial purposes and for identification.

The most exploited of these animals is the small hornless musk deer found in the Himalaya region of south China. The deer is snared and killed and the musk pipe is removed from the abdomen of the male. Often the animal is trapped for several days before the hunter returns to kill his catch. Each pod contains 28 grams to 56 grams of musk. It is conservatively estimated that 70,000 musk deer die annually to produce .5 to l.S tonnes of musk, but the exact magnitude is unknown as the trapping of the deer and the trading in musk is illegal in the chief areas of supply- India and Nepal. There are 80 musk substitutes in existence but, unfortunately for the animals, cosmetic technologists maintain that as yet the synthetics do not match the characteristic of the animal derivative.

Another sought after animal ingredient is obtained from the Ethiopian civet cat and small quantities have been collected from other species found in India, Malaysia, China and parts of Africa. The strong smelling substance has been highly valued in perfume making for thousands of years. The aromatic secretion occurs in males and females with greater quantities produced when the animal is angry. Three men are needed to extract this substance. The animal is prodded with sticks until it is angry. Its hind legs and tail then are grabbed. The civet pouch, located near the genital organs, is opened and the musk extracted with a horn spatula. Wax is inserted into the pouch to reduce irritation but inflammation may occur causing death within two days. The operation is repeated every nine to 10 days of the animal’s productive life.

There are substitutes for animal ingredients. Other forms of testing cosmetics and toiletries are available to the cosmetic industry. I certainly hope that the directors of those companies who use animal content in their products and animals for testing their products will change their policies in the very near future. I urge the Government to instigate a wide-ranging inquiry into the $700m a year cosmetic industry. We should take into account exorbitant price increases, deceptive packaging, ban animal testing in cosmetic research, legislate to curb the use of animal ingredients, and make it compulsory for cosmetic companies to label all products telling consumers whether animal or synthetic ingredients have been used.

In the few minutes that I have left I would like also to grieve for the many thousands of dolphins killed by Japanese fishermen. The editor of the Sydney Sun sums it up very clearly. He had this to say:

Possibly the most hideous kind of campaign against animal life is under way again in Japan.

On the Island of Iki, fishermen are clubbing, gunning and knifing their way through another bloody slaughter of dolphins.

It is a barbarous and degrading performance for the Japanese who condone or encourage it and for the rest of the world which can only watch in anger.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would like to use the two or three minutes that are left in this debate to grieve on the subject of children’s schoolbags. Honourable members might laugh but in the last couple of weeks my attention has been drawn through some medical advice to the great damage that is being done to children’s backs as a result of carrying heavy schoolbags by hand. I am pleased to see that two of my medical colleagues on the front bench- the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) and the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham)- are agreeing with me. I think this is a very significant matter. I would like to see some public awareness not only by parents but also perhaps by education departments of the real damage that is being done to children’s bodies through the carrying of heavy schoolbags.

It is only common sense that the best way for anybody to carry a heavy load is on his back. I know it is a little difficult to encourage high school children to carry a backpack because peer pressure leads them to follow the traditional and fashionable method of carrying school cases. However, I think it is important that people realise the great damage that can be done to children’s bodies by carrying heavy loads by hand, particularly in the formative stages of their life when their bones are still soft. Since this matter has been made a public issue, my office has been flooded in the last day or so with phone calls. One parent told me that his child’s high school bag weighed 8 kilograms. It is just ridiculous to think that a kid could be carrying a schoolbag around weighing the equivalent of two house bricks. We can imagine the damage that that could be doing.

Damage manifests itself in the form of spinal curvature, compressed lungs and the displacement of hips. All sorts of lung and cardiac disorders can be the direct result of carrying heavy loads by hand. Also, as the honourable member for Capricornia is pointing out to me, this practice can lead to some form of hunching of the back. So I would like to think that people would take a responsible view of this matter which is backed up by a good deal of medical research. I would like to think that the education authorities in the States might do something about recommending at an official level that school children carry backpacks instead of schoolbags.

I believe that some attempts have been made in some countries to introduce legislation in this respect. The former Labor Government in New Zealand attempted to do so. I do not know the result of this action but certainly that Government made strong recommendations to its education department that children should carry backpacks. It is very much the common practice for children in Scandinavian countries to have backpacks. A gentleman from the West German Government told me yesterday that the school authorities in his country strongly recommend the use of backpacks as against the carriage of schoolbags.

In recent years the problem has become exacerbated with the alteration in school procedures. When you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I were at school I think we stayed permanently at the one desk and the teachers rotated between the classrooms. That is not the case with modern high schools at which children rotate from classroom to classroom and are rarely at a fixed desk. The obvious result of this practice is that they lug home all their books every day. Of course, one of the other problems is the difference in the size of children. For instance, my only daughter who attends high school is only a tiny tot. She is a little girl. I have seen boys in her class who weigh around the 12-stone mark. She is down around the 6-stone mark. Obviously there is a great imbalance between that little girl carrying the same load of books that a big strong boy would carry. So all in all, without wasting too much of the time of the House because I know that the time for debating grievances has almost concluded, I would like to suggest that the responsible Minister in this Parliament, the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar), and his counterpart, the Minister for Education (Mr Fife), might do something about instigating some sort of popular appeal to parents or perhaps a national advertising campaign -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I hate to interrupt the honourable member for Parramatta but the time is now5.20 p.m. The time for this debate has expired. In accordance with the resolution of the House the debate is interrupted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1632

USE OF DEFOLIANTS AND OTHER CHEMICALS IN VIETNAM

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The failure of the Government to provide a judicial inquiry into the spraying of defoliants and other chemicals in Vietnam, and the effects of those chemicals on Vietnam veterans and their wives and families.

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 HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

-There can be no more serious set of events than those that have occurred in this Parliament in the course of the last week when the Minister for

Veterans’ Affairs. (Mr Adermann) produced a statement to the House in which he indicated that the Government was going to conduct what was essentially a private scientific inquiry to deal with the grievances of Vietnam veterans who were deeply concerned about the failure of the Government to respond to their requests for compensation and to have their situation remedied. In fact, what has occurred is that the Minister has made a great song and dance and great play about what the Government has done. But I can assure the House that it is no good for the Minister to try to satisfy his back bench colleagues, his ministerial colleagues, and indeed to try to con this Parliament, when the one group in the community that has to be satisfied- the one group in the community that ought to be satisfied- is the Vietnam veterans.

These people have publicly indicated their deep concern at what has been described by Mr McMinn, the President of the Vietnam Veterans Action Association, as an exercise by the Government to attempt to hoodwink completely Vietnam veterans in respect of their just claims in terms of what has occurred to them. The history of defoliants -

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the business of the day be called on.

Mr Holding:

– That is the third time I have been gagged on the question of agent orange. It is an absolute scandal; it is an absolute disgrace.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have to put the question. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will please resume his seat.

Mr Holding:

– But it is so unjust.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr V. J. Martin)

AYES: 70

NOES: 29

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1633

COMPANIES (ACQUISITION OF SHARES) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is the first of five Bills that I will be introducing today pursuant to the Commonwealth’s obligations under the Co-operative Companies and Securities Scheme. Before I discuss the Bill, I would like to outline, for the benefit of honourable members, the administrative and legislative context in which these Bills will operate.

Formal Agreement on Companies and Securities

On 6 March 1979, the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs outlined the main features of the formal agreement. One feature is that the National Companies and Securities Commission will have responsibility for the companies and securities laws covered by the formal agreement. The NCSC will be subject to directions from the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, which is established by the agreement. The

NCSC will, as far as is practicable, delegate its administrative responsibilities to the relevant authority in each State and Territory jurisdiction.

Another feature is that the content of the companies and securities laws will be set out in legislation that will apply to the Australian Capital Territory. Each other jurisdiction will then pass legislation applying the relevant Commonwealth law as the law of that jurisdiction, to the exclusion of its present legislation as from the commencement of the application legislation in that jurisdiction. Subsequently, any amendments to the Commonwealth law that are approved by the Ministerial Council will have automatic effect without the necessity for further and separate legislation in each other jurisdiction.

The aim is that, as far as possible, any person or company should be able to deal on all general companies and securities matters as if that person or company were only subject to one system of law and administration throughout Australia. The Co-operative Scheme thus provides a framework for uniform general laws on companies and securities that will apply throughout Australia. It was, however, never intended to fetter the sovereign right of any Parliament to pass particular laws which are not inconsistent with the general legislation agreed to under the Scheme. For example, the implementation of the acquisition of shares code under the Scheme will not affect the right of the Commonwealth to legislate with respect to anti-competitive mergers as it has done in the Trade Practices Act, or foreign take-overs as it has done in the Foreign Take-overs Act.

The substantive legislation under the Companies and Securities Scheme will be administered by the National Companies and Securities Commission, a body established by the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979, which came into operation on

I February 1980. Three full-time members- Mr Leigh Masel, Chairman, Mr John Coleman, Deputy Chairman, and Mr Tony Greenwood; and two part-time members, Mr John Nosworthy and Mr John Uhrig- have been appointed to the NCSC and commenced duty on

I I March of this year.

The substantive legislation under the scheme consists broadly of four groups. These relate to: Firstly, a companies acquisition of shares code; secondly, a securities industry code; thirdly, a Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; and, fourthly, a companies code.

The five Bills relating to the first three groups have been approved by the Ministerial Council and I will be moving the second reading of all five today. In relation to the fourth group, the companies code, the Ministerial Council agreed to make public two draft Bills, the Draft Companies Bill and the Draft Companies (Transitional Provisions) Bill. The two draft Bills are scheduled for release for public comment as soon as they can be printed, which is expected to be about mid-April. I will make a more detailed announcement about the Bills at that time. It is intended that all the companies code Bills will be introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament in the Budget session. It is still the objective for the whole co-operative scheme to be in operation by the beginning of 1 98 1 .

Public Consultation

In embarking on the major exercise of legislative uniformity and law reform that was envisaged by the formal agreement, this Government and the other governments which are parties to the agreement have sought to ensure that there is at all times adequate opportunity for the proposed legislation to be considered by interested persons. Comments were sought and received on the proposed company takeovers code and securities industry code, and committees of interested Government and Opposition members have been regularly briefed on the scheme and the Commonwealth legislation under it. As I have previously mentioned, we will also be seeking comments on the companies code. On 20 November 1979 the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs introduced the Company Take-overs Bill 1979 into this House. At that time both honourable members and the public were invited to make submissions on the provisions of that Bill. In the light of comments received, it was decided to make certain amendments to the Company Take-overs Bill and to retitle it the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill 1980. This new title describes more accurately the matters to which the Bill relates and has been used so as to avoid confusion with the Company Take-overs Bill 1979.

It is proposed that the Company Take-overs Bill and the Company Take-overs (Fees) Bill will be discharged in the event of the passage of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill and the Companies (Acquisition of Shares- Fees) Bill by both Houses of Parliament. At all stages in the formulation of the legislation there has been detailed and careful consideration of the Bills by the Ministerial Council which, as required by the terms of the formal agreement, has now unanimously approved them for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament.

Proposed new Australian Acquisition of Shares Code

The purpose of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill is to set out the substantive law for the proposed new Australian code which will regulate the acquisition of company shares. A detailed explanation of the provisions of the new acquisition of shares code is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with this Bill. An outline of the main features of the new code is at paragraph 13 of this memorandum; an outline of the differences between the new code and the Company Takeovers Bill 1979 is at Attachment ‘A’ to the explanatory memorandum. Basically, the new code will prohibit acquisitions above 20 per cent, or a lesser percentage if approved by the Ministerial Council and prescribed by regulations, and below 90 per cent of a company’s voting shares unless one of the following methods is adopted: Firstly, a gradual acquisition of shares at the rate of 3 per cent every six months; secondly, a formal takeover bid, based largely on the procedure that exists in the current takeover code; or thirdly, an unconditional bid for one month on the floor of a stock exchange. A takeover bid will be subject to conditions to promote fully informed decisions by all shareholders.

There are, of course, particular forms of acquisitions which should not come within the scope of this code. Accordingly, specific exemptions are written into the code for acquisitions such as those under a will, allotments in accordance with the terms of a prospectus,” or in certain cases acquisitions where the company involved may be regarded as not being owned by the public. In addition, the National Companies and Securities Commission will be able to grant exemptions, with or without conditions, where this is warranted by the particular circumstances of the case. One area where this power may be useful will be in relation to the regulation of private placements. The NCSC also has power to declare that the acquisition of shares code applies to a person in a particular case as if the code were modified in a particular manner. When exercising either of these discretionary powers, the NCSC is required to have regard to certain guidelines which are closely modelled on the general principles described by the Eggleston Committee in relation to the regulation of takeovers. The NCSC is also required to ensure that the acquisition of shares in companies takes place in an efficient, competitive and informed market. Furthermore, the NCSC has power to declare as unacceptable a specified acquisition of shares or specified conduct under a takeover scheme or takeover announcement. Where the NCSC declares that a specified acquisition or specified conduct is unacceptable, the court may, on the application of the NCSC, make certain orders. For example, the court may make an order to protect the rights of any person affected by the conduct or to ensure as far as possible that the relevant takeover scheme or takeover announcement proceeds as if the conduct had not taken place.

The provisions relating to partial bids under the acquisition of shares code have been tightened. There has been criticism of the provision in the Company Take-overs Bill 1979 which provided for unlimited purchase of shares in a target company to take place on the stock exchange provided that the purchaser had issued a Part A statement for not less than 20 per cent of the target company’s shares. It was argued that this could allow market raids leaving a large number of small shareholders locked in. For this reason, the acquisition of shares code now provides that an offeror cannot acquire shares on the floor of the stock exchange unless he has made an offer to acquire all the shares to which the takeover scheme relates. The offer may be conditional on 90 per cent acceptance, at which point the compulsory acquisition provisions of the code will come into operation. The code recognises that the onus for proper disclosure and equitable treatment must be not only with the offeror but also the management of the target company. To this end, and in addition to controlling the way in which shares may be acquired by an offeror, controls are placed on target company management to restrict the use of unreasonable defence tactics such as unjustifiable service agreements or wilful non-disclosure of information needed by shareholders to assess a bid for their shares.

Although varying views have been expressed as to the extent to which the freedom of bidders should be controlled, the new code seeks to close loopholes in the present legislation and to improve the effectiveness of the existing controls. We do not wish to discourage the making of takeover bids in cases in which there are adequate safeguards for the protection of shareholders. The new code seeks to ensure that, as far as practicable, those safeguards will now be observed in all takeovers. I see this code as an assistance to efficient and economically viable takeover activity. The code will promote investor confidence and encourage an informed and efficient market in securities. I commend the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 1636

COMPANIES (ACQUISITION OF SHARES-FEES) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Bill is related to the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill. The Companies (Acquisition of Shares-Fees) Bill will deal with fees payable under the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Bill. This Bill has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament. I commend the Companies (Acquisition of Shares- Fees) Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 1636

SECURITIES INDUSTRY BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament following the exposure in November 1979 of a draft Bill for public comment. The purpose of this Bill is to regulate the securities industry in the Australian Capital Territory. The other jurisdictions that are covered by the formal agreement on companies and securities will then pass legislation applying this code in those other jurisdictions.

When this Bill is applied in the mainland States it will replace existing State securities industry legislation. A detailed explanation of the provisions of the new securities industry code is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with the Bill. An outline of the main features of the Bill is at paragraphs 8 to 14 of this memorandum.

There are, however, some matters that I would like to draw to the attention of honourable members. The special investigations provisions have been re-drafted in accordance with the formal agreement. The Bill provides that special investigations may be instigated by the Ministerial Council or an individual Minister, or the Commission may request the Ministerial Council to direct that an investigation be held. New provisions have been added to allow evidence gathered in an examination to be admissible in both civil and criminal proceedings against the person examined and against other persons. There are certain safeguards when admitting evidence against other persons in criminal trials.

The Bill provides for the registration of stock exchanges and requires that the Commission must be notified of any amendments to the business or listing rules of the exchange. The Ministerial Council may subsequently disallow these amendments. The Commission has been vested with a new power to prohibit the trading of securities on a stock exchange. The licensing provisions of the Bill require that licences be held by a dealer, a dealer’s representative, an investment adviser and an investment representative. The Commission is required to maintain a register of licence holders and is empowered to revoke or suspend a licence. The conditions which may be imposed on the granting of a dealer’s licence have been extended. In particular there are new conditions relating to the financial position of the holder of a licence.

The Bill regulates conduct in the securities industry. Certain representations are prohibited and persons who recommend securities must disclose their interests in those securities. A dealer is prohibited from dealing with another person as principal without first informing the other person of that fact. The Bill prohibits short selling and sets out detailed requirements to regulate the use of clients’ moneys by a dealer. There are provisions in the Bill relating to the accounts which must be kept by dealers. A register of the interests of licence holders and financial journalists is required to be kept under the Bill. This register may now be kept at any place in Australia which is covered by the scheme. Provision for stock exchange fidelity funds has been continued in the new Bui.

Provisions which deal with the trading of securities have been expanded to include a provision on the dissemination of information about illegal transactions. The stock market manipulation provisions have been redrafted. New provisions have been included in the Bill in relation to court orders. The Commission is given certain powers to intervene in proceedings to apply to the court for orders prohibiting persons subject to investigations from taking property out of

Australia. I commend the Securities Industry Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 1637

SECURITIES INDUSTRY (FEES) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Securities Industry (Fees) Bill provides for fees payable under the Securities Industry Bill. This Bill has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament. I commend the Securities Industry (Fees) Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 1637

COMPANIES AND SECURITIES (INTERPRETATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is a Bill to interpret the Commonwealth legislation under the co-operative companies and securities law. This Bill will assist in the uniform interpretation of all of the substantive legislation that is to be administered by the National Companies and Securities Commission. This Bill has been approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities for introduction into the Commonwealth Parliament. I commend the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 1637

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1980

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

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to introduce a number of amendments to the Customs Act, the more important of which are those directed at improving procedures for the clearance through Customs of persons who commit relatively minor breaches of the Customs Act, and those amendments dealing with the licensing and control of warehouses. Under the present provisions of the Customs Act, offences committed by persons being cleared through Customs involve seizure of goods and court proceedings by way of either, or both, a prosecution by a Collector of Customs, or recovery action by a claimant owner. In the case of a relatively minor breach the action required by those provisions is unwieldly, wasteful of resources and can be seen as unduly oppressive. Accordingly, the Government has decided that, if the amount of duty attempted to be evaded does not exceed $500, simplified procedures should apply.

The Bill introduces provisions which it is intended will give such an offender an option of regaining possession of impounded goods on payment of an amount equivalent to twice the duty attempted to be evaded or, alternatively, of contesting the seizure of the goods through the courts in the normal way. As the intention of this new measure is to obviate resort to the courts, exercise of the option to pay the penalty duty will preclude further legal action in the matter by either the Department or the person.

Another important purpose of the Bill is to remake Part V of the Customs Act which governs the licensing and control of the warehouses which store dutiable goods pending payment of duty or re-exportation from Australia. Serious deficiencies in the existing provisions were exposed last year by a judgment of the Federal Court of Australia wherein it was held that a Collector of Customs acted beyond the powers now available under the Customs Act when he purported to revoke a warehouse licence for reasons other than default in payment of licence fees.

As many of the provisions relating to warehouses have remained virtually untouched since their inclusion in the original Commonwealth Customs Act of 1901, the opportunity has been taken to revise all these provisions. An important feature of the revised provisions is the requiring, as a prerequisite to the granting of a licence, that all persons having responsibility for the control and operation of a warehouse be lit and proper persons. Licences may also be suspended or cancelled by the Comptroller-General of Customs or a Collector of Customs if any of the grounds specified in proposed section 86 in clause 10 of the Bill exist. However, instead of moving directly to cancellation of a licence, the Comptroller or Collector may first require a licence holder to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled. Provision is made to allow the Comptroller or Collector, in appropriate circumstances, to suspend the licence for up to 28 days while the question of cancellation is being considered. The opportunity has also been taken to omit provisions relating to King’s or Queen’s warehouses. The need for these Commonwealthoperated facilities ceased many years ago owing to the growth of commercially operated facilities at all places that are ports and airports for the purposes of the Customs Act.

The Bill proposes, by clauses 7, 8, 9 and 16, a series of amendments to the Customs Act to correct long-realised deficiencies in the treatment of ships and aircraft. The Government has moved in this regard for several pressing reasons. As part of the Government’s policy relating to the Australian shipping and shipbuilding industries, any ships imported into Australia are required to have the permission of the Minister for Transport. However, to meet short-falls in the availability of local shipping the need arises, from time to time, for the granting of temporary import permissions. The Act presently is deficient in this regard, and there are doubts as to whether or not there are powers to enforce the re-exportation of vessels, on the expiry of the temporary permit. The amendments proposed by clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill will correct these deficiencies.

Further, the Government desires to assist the Government of the Northern Territory by providing a means for dealing with refugee boats. A considerable number of these boats have arrived in Darwin and at other points on our northern coast and have remained there, in some places abandoned and derelict and, in other cases, in circumstances where the legal status of their presence in Australia is uncertain. Under amendments proposed by clause 7 of the Bill, any ship which is suspected of having been imported may be deemed to be imported, and therefore subject to the import provisions of the Customs Act, unless it departs from Australia within a reasonable period compatible with itinerant status. Failure to depart or, alternatively, to be entered for the purposes of the Customs Act may result in forfeiture action being taken.

Finally, consequential to a continuing program of review of Customs legislation the Bill proposes a number of amendments which will facilitate administration. These deal with the formal appointment of ports, airports, boarding stations and wharves, the working days and hours of the Customs, the questioning of disembarking and embarking persons, prohibiting unauthorised persons from passenger holding areas and the custody of narcotic goods seized by the Australian Federal Police. In relation to the formal appointment of ports and airports, the Act requires all ships and aircraft entering Australia to enter at a proclaimed port or airport. The formal appointment of these ports and airports, and of wharves and boarding stations, is by the Governor-General in-Council. This is a carryover from the Colonial Customs Acts. The amendments proposed by clause 4 of the Bill will provide for future appointments of ports and airports to be by the Minister, and the less important appointment of wharves and boarding stations to be by the Comptroller-General of Customs.

The amendments proposed by clause 6 of the Bill will rectify a long-standing deficiency in the present provisions relating to the working days and hours of the Customs. These provisions refer only to ships and ships’ cargo and doubt has been cast on the validity of current procedures in so far as they apply to aircraft and aircraft cargo. Because the processing of outward passengers is hampered by the presence of visitors and wellwishers in the processing area, clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill will provide that unauthorised entry into the passenger processing area is prohibited. Officers of Customs presently can only question embarking and disembarking persons about matters relevant to the Customs Act. By clause 12 of the Bill, it is proposed to expand these powers to cover questions relevant to other Commonwealth legislation, such as the Banking Act and the Quarantine Act, so as to facilitate passenger processing.

The amendments proposed by clause 13 ofthe Bill will overcome an anomaly that exists in the Act relating to the disposal of narcotic goods seized by the Australian Federal Police. If such goods are seized by members of that force they are now required to be taken to the nearest King’s warehouse or such other place of security as a Collector of Customs shall direct The proposed amendment will allow the Police to retain custody of narcotic goods seized by them. I commend the BUI to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 1639

MUSEUM OF AUSTRALIA BILL 1980

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

Second Reading

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

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill provides for the establishment of a national museum of Australian history. Its establishment will fill a gap in the array of institutions charged with the preservation of our cultural heritage and will demonstrate to the world the pride that we have in our country. As a nation we have been somewhat diffident in expressing an interest in our history and our culture. This is to be regretted for our history and culture are rich, fascinating and, may I add, developing. Our children should have the opportunity to see and to understand aspects of life in Australia in the past so that they can learn for the future. This museum will provide that opportunity and will, I hope, prove to be a national focus for all Australians.

In 1975, the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collectionsthe Pigott report- was tabled in the Parliament. The report contained a number of important recommendations and the Government has already implemented a number of them. Those implemented include the Scheme on Tax Incentives for the Arts, the Historic Shipwrecks Act and training courses in materials conservation. In this Bill, the Government proposes the implementation of perhaps the most important recommendation of the report- the establishment of a national museum of Australian history. I would like to compliment the members of the Committee for the very forward looking report they submitted. It is a tribute to them that the majority of the major recommendations have now been acted upon and the museum movement and Australia generally are richer for their work.

The national museum is, as recommended by the Pigott Committee, to be known as the Museum of Australia. It will have three main themes- the history of Aboriginal man, the history of non-Aboriginal man and the interaction of man with his environment in Australia. I commend the Committee for this exciting and unique concept. This Bill has been drafted so as to encourage the Council, which will be appointed following proclamation of the Act, to develop the concept and bring it to fruition. The Museum of Australia will not be three separate museums on the one site. To be effective the three themes must be inter-related and complement each other. Man is affected by and in turn affects his environment and it is to be regretted that, in the past, museums have tended to treat human and natural history separately. The Museum of Australia will not have this failing and visitors to it will have the opportunity of obtaining a comprehensive understanding of life in Australia.

The Bill provides that the history of Aboriginal man will be encompassed in the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia. The Gallery is the first of the themes recommended by the Pigott Committee, and is specifically mentioned in the Bill, not by chance but to indicate that a history of Australia would be meaningless or misleading if it did not highlight the history and culture of the original inhabitants of this continent. As the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections states:

If the human history of Australia were to be marked on a 12 hour clockface, the era of the white man would run for only the last three or four minutes.

The Museum of Australia will not give mere token recognition to Aboriginal history and culture. Nor will it portray that history and culture in the way considered suitable by Europeans. The Council is required by the Bill to pursue a policy directed at securing the development and maintenance of the Gallery and the exhibition of historical material by persons who are Aboriginals. In effect, Aboriginal people are invited to explain to the world their history and the richness of their culture. The Bill does not specify in any way how the other two themes which constitute the balance of the Museum of Australia will be developed. This is left to the staff and the Council of the Museum.

Provision is made in the Bill for an Interim Council which may be established before the permanent Council is appointed. The Interim Council may exercise all the powers and functions of the Council but it is envisaged that it will be primarily concerned with developing the concept and preparing a program of construction and costs. One particular task that it will have will be to prepare an acquisitions policy for the Museum and to implement that policy within the constraints of the funds made available. The basis of a national historical collection already exists but considerably more research and planning will be necessary before it can be developed into a collection worthy of a national museum.

In this regard, I would remind members of the Scheme of Tax Incentives for the Arts. This was introduced several years ago to encourage persons owning material suitable for the collections of public libraries, museums and art galleries to donate it and in return they are entitled to claim a tax deduction based on the market value of their donation. It is an excellent scheme and I am delighted that the people of Australia will, following the passage of this Bill, be able to assist in the development of our national museum of history with the advantage of this tax incentive. I am sure that there is a wealth of cultural material of national significance still in private hands and I hope that many will seize this opportunity to do what they can to assist.

The Council has a complex and difficult charter. It will need to consist of people with vision as well as of sound business and practical backgrounds. To ensure that it will have available to it the range of expertise obviously required, the Bill provides for the appointments of committees of the Council. I envisage, for example, that one or more committees will be appointed to examine and report on aspects of the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia. As the Government has made a commitment that Aboriginals will have a full and meaningful involvement in the planning and operation of the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia, I can see that the role of committees, in this regard will be vital.

There is a whole range of interests in the Museum of Australia and it is not possible for them all to be represented on the Council. There are, for instance, a number of Commonwealth departments and authorities which will wish to ensure that in the planning and development of the Museum their particular areas of interest are not overlooked or disregarded. The States have been planning and operating museums for many years and as a result we have in Australia a wealth of experience which we would be most unwise to ignore. I will ask the Council to have regard to these interests.

I will be seeking the early appointment of a director of the Museum. The Pigott Committee attached particular importance to this as it considered that he should be heavily involved in the formulation of policy as well as being responsible to the Council for its implementation. As we are planning a museum of world class, I see the director as a key figure and as a person who will need to be well qualified to run such an institution. The director is to be a member of the Council. There are those who believe that the chief executive should not be involved in the formulation of policy as this could create constraints in the event of there being a difference of view between him and other members of Council. In this case, as the Council and particularly the Interim Council will be involved with matters that will set the scene for many years to come, I consider that the director must be a member of the Council and the Bill has been drafted accordingly.

There has been some concern expressed that the Museum of Australia will duplicate existing State institutions and enter into competition with them. That is not the case and indeed I believe that it will complement and reinforce their position. As I have already explained, the Museum of Australia is a unique concept and it is not possible for a State to establish or develop a museum of national history. It is my hope that the establishment of the Museum of Australia will be seen as a drawing together of the museum movement in Australia and a long overdue recognition of the vital contribution it makes to our cultural or social lives. At a recent meeting I attended with my State counterparts, I took the opportunity of explaining what was proposed and I was delighted with the degree of support I received. I am convinced that once the Council is appointed and its members have had the opportunity for discussions with representatives of the museum profession, any fears or reservations held will be dissipated. I consider that the establishment of the Museum of Australia will be an important addition to the cultural life of Australia and I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wallis) adjourned.

page 1640

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

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

Second Reading

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill proposes amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The amendments are complementary to legislation which has been introduced into the New South Wales Parliament. The two pieces of legislation are necessary to being into effect the agreement which has been reached between the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government to deal with complex legal, jurisdictional and industrial relations problems at Australian Lubricating Oil Refinery Limited, Australian Oil Refining Pty Ltd and Total Refineries Australia Limited in New South Wales. Where necessary there will be provision for a joint sitting of the

Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Industrial Commission of New South Wales to deal with certain oil industry matters.

By way of background, the House will recall the very serious industrial situation at Australian Lubricating Oil Refinery Limited, Australian Oil Refining Pty Ltd and Total Refineries Australia Limited in June last year when three of the four oil refineries in New South Wales were closed down, causing massive disruption in that State and hardship to many thousands of its citizens. It should not go unsaid that if in June last year the Premier of New South Wales had been willing to acknowledge that it would be in the best interests of all Australians to support a national, rather than a sectional approach to industrial relations, then this whole tortuous exercise may not have been necessary. It is unfortunate that his recognition of this enlightened approach emerged so long after he had in fact associated himself with sectional interests. In the event, however, it was agreed at that time by the two governments that in order to restore normal operations at the refineries, a joint Commonwealth-New South Wales officials working party be established to investigate the provision of a tribunal to regulate conditions of employment in the oil industry in New South Wales.

The working party reported to both governments and after protracted and intensive negotiations between all concerned, including the responsible New South Wales Minister, Mr Hills and me and the various parties in the oil industry, the Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments agreed upon the approach to be taken to resolve the industrial relations problems at these refineries. The agreed arrangements have the following main features: They will apply only to the operators and their employers at the Caltex and Total refineries in New South Wales; common negotiations- the established process for handling federal claims by the federal parties within the federal jurisdiction will proceed as they have always done, untouched by the agreed arrangements; a mechanism will be provided, including the right of intervention within the New South Wales jurisdiction, for determining which matters will be the subject of a joint sitting; and appeals from decisions on joint sittings will lie in the New South Wales jurisdiction.

The very circumstances which gave rise to the need to create the special arrangements which this legislation provides reflect the intensity of the conflicting interests with which the Government has been confronted. Accordingly we have taken the view that overall community interest had to be given first priority. What has been arrived at is not being suggested as the ideal, but it is, in the Government’s judgment, the very best that can be wrung out of difficult circumstances- the best means of serving the community. It can work and serve the community well, but no party touched by it can say that it meets their every requirement. Without goodwill by all concerned it can founder; without vigilance it can be misused. It therefore places responsibilities and obligations squarely on unions and workers, companies and the tribunals.

For our part, we are, within the arrangements, doing everything possible both to encourage such goodwill and to ensure the necessary vigilance. The stakes are so high that the Government must and will closely oversight all aspects of the introduction and operation of these arrangements. Let no-one misunderstand our position. While we will support them and help to make them work our fundamental commitment is to ensure that all those who rely on this vital industry can do so without the unpredictable turmoil which has all too often disrupted its operations. I therefore give notice that we will review our position if the opportunity to make the scheme work is not genuinely taken up. Our prime responsibility, to safeguard the community interest, demands we reserve the right to do this. Our monitoring and review provisions have been developed precisely for this reason.

Safeguards have been built into each stage of the arrangements and both governments remain committed to preserve the national characteristics of the oil industry. The two governments have agreed to provide the mechanism for determining which, if any, matters which are the subject of claims within the State jurisdiction should be dealt with by joint sittings and whether any of the matters within claims in the State jurisdiction are currently the subject of common negotiations federally. An essential safeguard is the opportunity for federal parties to have the right of intervention within the State jurisdiction in respect of matters which they consider should be dealt with by a joint sitting of the two commissions. The New South Wales legislation has been drafted in a technical way to fit the principal Act. Consequently there is provision only for the parties respondent to the various federal oil industry awards to have a right of intervention in the New South Wales jurisdiction. The Commonwealth has accepted the assurances given to it and all other parties by the New South Wales Government that there will be no impediment to the

Commonwealth’s involvement in these proceedings. A further critically important feature of the arrangements- and another safeguard- is that when there are matters which are currently the subject of common negotiations federally, the Industrial Commission of New South Wales is prohibited from dealing with a claim in the State arena when the subject matter of that claim is included within common negotiations.

I turn now to the substance of the proposed amendments. The Bill provides that oil industry industrial matters concerning the oil industry branch operators and their employers at the refineries to which I referred earlier will no longer come within the jurisdiction of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Instead these matters will be dealt with by the Industrial Commission of New South Wales. The Bill also provides for the concurrent operation of a prescribed New South Wales Act insofar as that Act makes provision for dealing with oil industry industrial matters and it provides for a presidential member of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to be designated to perform functions, exercise powers and carry out duties under a prescribed New South Wales Act.

As part of the agreement between the two governments, there is an understanding that, if either Government so wishes, there be a review after two years of the arrangements which are being established by the Commonwealth legislation and the complementary New South Wales legislation. This understanding is not embodied in the legislation but has been agreed verbally by Mr Hills and me, and is to be the subject of an exchange of letters between the two governments. In summary, it is as a result of a unique situation that the two governments have agreed to the approach which is being taken. It is intended to deal with a specific problem within New South Wales and I stress that the Commonwealth Government remains committed to preserving the national approach to industrial relations in the oil industry. I commend the BUI to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned.

page 1642

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

-I present the fourteenth report ofthe Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 1642

ACQUISITION OF A FOURTH PATROL FRIGATE

Ministerial Statement

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– by leave- Last week I advised the House that discussions had been opened with the Government of the United States of America on Australia’s wish to purchase a guided missile frigate of the FFG-7 class. I am now able to inform the House of the results of those discussions. It will be recalled that at the end of February I visited Washington for discussions relating to our defence co-operation with the United States and to discuss with the United States Department of Defense the arrangements that could be made for the early sale to Australia of a fourth FFG. I am happy now to tell the House that agreement has been reached with the United States Government on the terms and conditions whereby Australia may join with the United States Navy in its 1980 FFG procurement for a ship to be delivered in the United States in April 1984. I have instructed my Department to proceed to complete the formal arrangements.

Mr Deputy Speaker, when I tell you that acceptance of this offer will result in a contract being placed on our behalf later this month, you will appreciate the many administrative shortcuts that have been taken to allow Australia access to the annual United States Navy ship procurement cycle some 12 months in advance of normal processes. The arrangements being made will provide not only that Australia may join the 1980 procurement but also that we will be allowed one of the first ships to be completed against that order. After due deliberation of possible alternatives we have expressed our preference that this ship be built in Seattle where our other three ships are on order. It will be understood that late admission to the program cannot be achieved without some interaction with the United States Navy’s own plans.

I express my appreciation to the United States authorities for the assistance they have afforded me in making this possible. In particular, I offer my thanks to an old friend in the very distinguished United States Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr Graham Claytor. He is a very great friend of this country and a very devoted servant of peace. I thank him most warmly. I also take this opportunity to express before the House my thanks to the officers of the Department of Defence, uniformed and civil, whose dedicated and intensive efforts over recent weeks have made this very satisfactory deal with our American partners possible. They have worked untiringly and with great devotion. I am sure that it would be the wish of the House that their efforts be acknowledged.

This new guided missile frigate will incorporate the most recent developments of this design. These include enhancement of the combat data system and the installation of stabilisers and a flight deck designed to operate heavier helicopters. The communications equipment has been upgraded and provision is made for additional crew to man and maintain the new equipments. Our fourth FFG will be fitted during construction with the Phalanx close-in weapons system. These improvements are not without cost. The terms of the agreement to be concluded with the United States Government provide that the ship will be delivered within an estimated sailaway cost in American dollars of $275.3m, including provision for estimated inflation over the four years of construction. When this estimate is brought to Australian dollar values it corresponds to an estimated sailaway cost of $20 lm at January 1980 prices. The total project cost estimate, which includes also provision for the supply of helicopters, standard and harpoon missiles, ammunition and elements of support, amounts to $280m in January 1980 prices.

Earlier trials and initial experience with the FFG class ships have confirmed expectations of their considerable capability. HMAS Adelaide, the first of these ships being built for the Royal Australian Navy, will be delivered in September this year. As a result of this most recent decision by the Government and the excellent cooperation of the United States authorities, there will be four ships of this class in service with our Navy by 1984. They will provide a most significant increment to our naval capabilities.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-by leave- When the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) says that this program will not be without costs he is quite accurate. There are costs for any program, especially a program as large as this. I think, as I indicated in my speech on the previous defence statement, that the specifics of the project could be set out in a little more detail and a little clearer. Firstly, I would draw the attention of the House to the figures which are mentioned in the Minister’s statement. The cost as expressed in American dollars of $275. 3m is, I assume, a final cost estimate for the program. The cost as expressed in Australian dollars of $20 lm is not a conversion of the earlier figure but an estimate at current prices. Therefore, it is not a comparable estimate in actual terms. The amount of $US275.3m mentioned by the Minister converts to approximately $A250m, and the cost of the project to somewhere in excess of $A330m, not $A280m. I think it should be made clear that they are the costs we are talking about, not the amounts of $2 80m and $20 lm mentioned in the statement, which are not comparable with the American prices quoted.

There are a number of other aspects of this matter which should be taken into account and which are in fact costs. The first of these is the cost to Australian industry in that the follow-on destroyer program which is designated to be placed in Australian yards has in fact fallen back five years- from the mid-1980s to the end of 1980- according to the Minister’s statement. This statement does not give any indication of arrangements having been made for Australian industry participation in offsets in this program, but I assume that that is part of the program.

One other Australian project which was originally involved in the FFG program but which apparently now has been dropped totally from it is the fitting of the Mulloka sonar system, which was originally to have been fitted to the first three frigates but which, because it was said at the time not to have been available for fitting, was dropped in favour of an American system, even though the third frigate was far enough behind in the program for that system to have been fitted a couple of months later when the system was said by the Minister to be ready. I would assume from the statement by the Minister that it is not intended now to fit that system to this frigate either. Therefore what I understand to be a very successful system which is well adapted to Australian conditions will not in fact be fitted to Australian frigates. It will now be used only in the existing destroyers during their modernisation programs, if in fact decisions have not already been made for it to be dropped from that area also.

The Minister has said that we have been very fortunate in fitting into the United States program at an early stage and on an early delivery date. That may be correct. Certainly, the delivery date is one which would meet the Government’s program and requirements. It is also fair to say that at the moment the advance vessels in the United States orders are being built to specifications which the United States has decided it does not wish to proceed with. In fact they are due to go back through the production line for modifications in order to put a new passage sonar unit on those vessels which the earlier ones were not equipped to take. It may well be that in taking an earlier unit the United States may well be doing Australia a favour, but it might also be doing itself a favour in cost arrangements for this particular unit.

The Government has not been able to make a decision on helicopters for these FFG frigates. It appears now that the first of them will be in operation for three to four years before helicopters, which are a vital part ofthe whole weapons system and defence mechanism, are available for these vessels. Apparently there is a difficulty in choice even though there is a wide range of helicopters around the world. The problem has not been solved even though we are now some five years into the project with FFGs.

Obviously the Opposition is not opposing this project. It is disappointed that the destroyers constructed in Austrafia are to fall back in the production line as a result of this purchase, or as a consequence of some other government decision. At some stage I certainly would like the Minister to give an assurance that the Australian industry participation has been guaranteed on this particular project and that the modifications which were required on other vessels for the Royal Australian Navy will be part of this project.

I seek an assurance from the Minister that in choosing to proceed with this project at this time the Government will not delay a number of other important defence projects which are pending and are equally important to the defence of Australia which have tended to move to a secondary role in discussions in recent weeks. The total composition of Australia’s defence forces and their capacities is important and integral. Movements away to meet current situations, be they international or political, can have the effect of creating a lack of balance in the defence forces and their equipment programs which could have serious long term consequences. The costs of defence equipment is such that any choice of equipment which does not meet the ongoing requirements of the Australian defence forces can have catastrophic results.

page 1644

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Ministerial Statement

Mr MacKELLAR (Warringah-Minister for Health -by leave- Honourable members will recall that I have been asked in recent weeks to confirm or deny that an ‘overpayment’ has been made to chemists in Australia for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. I indicated that the inquiry being undertaken by Mr Justice Ludeke and the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements had not been finalised and until it was finalised it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the media reports. Though Mr Justice Ludeke has not yet made his determination, the Government now has additional information which it believes should be made available to the Parliament

Late last year the emerging results of an inquiry into pharmacy earnings, costs and profits for the financial year 1977-78 suggested that an excess payment situation might exist in relation to fees paid by the Commonwealth for the dispensing of prescriptions under the national health scheme. The Government was originally concerned to ensure that payment to chemists for dispensing prescriptions should be at a level which is appropriate to cost structures and reasonable returns. But on learning of this possible excess payment situation, it also became concerned to arrive at an independent assessment of how this possible excess payment situation could have arisen. Accordingly, the Government asked for a report from the Public Service Board covering the circumstances which led to the potential for excess payments to be made to chemists; the extent to which responsiblity might be attributed; and any appropriate action.

The Public Service Board set up a team comprising one of its senior officers, and senior officers from the Department of Finance and the Auditor-General’s Office. The team was responsible to the Board for the duration of the exercise and its report was made available through the Board to the Government. The report of the PubUc Service Board team indicates that if the Chairman of the Joint Committee had made a determination solely on the basis of information flowing from the 1977-78 inquiry which became available late last year, excess payments of $93m or $173m, depending on the method of assessment, would have accrued between I July 1976 and the end of December 1979. It also indicates that excess payments of $12m or $62m, once again depending on the method of assessment, would have occurred between 1973-74 and 1 975-76 on this same basis.

The excess payments of $ 12m in 1973-74 and 1975-76 and $93m from 1 July 1976 to 31 December 1979 were assessed on the basis of what would be an appropriate level of remuneration for an average pharmacy. The excess payments of $62m in 1973-74 and 1975-76 and $173m from 1 July 1976 to 31 December 1979 were assessed on the basis of what would be an appropriate level of remuneration for an economic pharmacy under which the influence of small, less economic pharmacies on the cost evaluation is lower than in relation to the average pharmacy approach. I should stress at the outset that these sums of money are not overpayments which are recoverable at law. Amounts determined by the Minister prior to January 1977 and by the Chairman of the Joint Committee since then have been legally made. This has been confirmed by advice from the Attorney-General’s Department. The Government and the body representing chemists- the Pharmacy Guild of Australia- have also received separate legal advice that these excess payments cannot be recovered.

I would further emphasise that in arriving at a decision on the level of chemists’ remuneration based on the 1977-78 inquiry data, the Chairman of the Joint Committee will obviously consider other factors put before him in Joint Committee which are relevant to the outcome of the inquiry’. These excess payments figures can therefore be seen to be notional only. They are attributable to the following factors: An error which occurred in 1974 in the translation of the statistical specifications into computer systems specifications to be used for allocating labour costs; and the method of updating determinations.

My inquiries suggest that by far the greater share of the notional excess payment is due to the error which occurred in 1974. For this reason I intend to focus first, and in particular, on the circumstances surrounding that error. The error itself, which I shall describe later, occurred in an area of considerable technical complexity. The working environment, including relationships between the relevant Minister, advisory- and later statutory- bodies, supporting units and departments, is equally complex. For this reason I trust that honourable members will bear with me as I provide some of the more important background which emerged from examinations by officials, the Public Service Board team and myself of the pertinent papers.

There have been three major inquiries carried out to date to assist in making determinations of amounts payable to chemists for pharmaceutical benefits supplied under the national health scheme. The inquiries were carried out in respect of the financial years 1964-65, 1972-73 and 1977-78. They all basically involved an inquiry by a committee made up of representatives of the Pharmacy Guild and the Government, the committee being chaired ‘ by an independent chairman.

The comprehensive manner in which the inquiries were designed and carried out meant that it took some considerable time after the inquiry year before figures became available for use in the making of a determination. Between inquiries updating arrangements have been applied to take account of chemists’ changed cost and price structures. The inquiry results provide base figures on earnings, costs and profits of pharmacies and are used as a basis for reviewing the level of remuneration paid to chemists for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. The level of remuneration comprises a dispensing fee and a mark-up on goods- mark-up is a percentage of the list price of goods to chemists, currently 25 per cent in relation to ready-prepared pharmaceuticals.

The 1964-65 inquiry was conducted by the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements, under the chairmanship of Sir Walter Scott. This inquiry followed many years of negotiating remuneration increases between the members of the Pharmacy Guild and Government representatives. During the years prior to 1964, considerable difficulty had been experienced in arriving at an acceptable formula for determining increases for the remuneration for chemists. It was against this background that the Guild in February 1965 proposed that an inquiry be conducted by an independent firm of consultants to provide factual information on the costs of dispensing National Health Service prescriptions.

The 1964-65 inquiry failed to substantiate an increase for chemists and to provide the expected factual information on which to base future increases in remuneration. By early 1972 the Guild and the Government had reached an impasse which could only be overcome by another inquiry based on more modern concepts of statistical analysis and better design based on the limited experience gained from the 1964-65 inquiry. At the same time a small increase was approved in the level of remuneration as an interim measure.

Agreement was subsequently reached that a new inquiry should be undertaken with respect to the financial year 1972-73. It was originally expected that this inquiry would be finalised by March 1974. When the March 1974 deadline was not met, the Government came under strong pressure to finalise this matter quickly. The resultant problems were exacerbated by the difficulties involved in getting sufficient skilled staff for undertaking the very complex work involved in the inquiry. But the report did not become available until May 1975- some three years after the inquiry was initiated.

The time constraint, pressures and athfinding involved in this inquiry are obvious. But they should be seen in perspective. In order to do so, I need to explain the arrangements which then existed for the conduct of the inquiry- as these are different in certain material respects from arrangements which now apply.

In this period- indeed, until 1976- there existed a non-statutory committee know as the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements. This Committee was charged with responsibility for advising the Minister for Health on matters relating to the pricing and supply of pharmaceutical goods. The Committee comprised four representatives of the Pharmacy Guild, and four government representatives-three from the Department of Health and one from the then Treasury- and an independent Chairman. The Chairman’s role was very much akin to that of a conciliator. The Chairman attempted to reach agreement where differences of view existed. Where these differences could not be resolved, the Minister for Health was the final arbiter. The role of the Minister is important to remember as this point assumes particular relevance later when the government of the day took decisions which were not in accord with the advice of the Chairman.

As I have said previously, processing of the 1972-73 inquiry was lengthy and troublesome and the Government was under strong pressure to finalise the matter. Indeed, towards the end of 1974-75 the President of the Pharmacy Guild felt sufficiently concerned about the matter to press for a decision. As I understand it, the then Prime Minister was informed in mid- July 1975, of the situation by his Health Minister. In doing so the then Minister was concerned that one likely decision of the inquiry could be an increase in chemists’ remuneration backdated to 1 July 1973 which would have involved a substantial charge to revenue.

The then Government decided in July 1975 to wind up the 1972-73 inquiry and agreed to an increase in chemists’ remuneration. However, the Guild was not satisfied with the outcome of the inquiry. It particularly objected to the fact that the government of the day did not accept the Chairman’s recommendation in that it decided firstly to exclude goodwill from calculations in relation to this issue and, secondly, to analyse the results of the inquiry on the economic pharmacy approach I referred to earlier. The Guild considered that its objections warranted consideration of whether action should be taken in the High Court of Australia on this matter.

The records indicate that when the caretaker Government assumed office in 1975 the then Health Minister was briefed on the inquiry. There was no suggestion during that briefing of any doubts about the reliability of the inquiry data. Later briefings of the Minister in January 1976 and of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in February 1976 once again did not raise any doubts about the reliability of the inquiry data. There was, however, some uneasiness among officials at the time about figures relating to the question of the treatment of costs of goods sold in the inquiry which led them to initiate another survey on this particular aspect. Results which became available in July 1976 revealed an error of 8c per item for 1973-74 and 5c per item for 1974-75. On establishing this, the base data for future updating was corrected for subsequent years.

During 1 976 there were further discussions between the Government and the Guild. These discussions were conducted in the context of a High Court writ issued by the Pharmacy Guild in April 1976. At the end of 1976 agreement was reached between the Government and the Guild on a new arrangement. In summary this involved:

The amendment of the National Health Act to empower the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Arrangements to determine chemists’ rates of remuneration for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits.

The Chairman would be a Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

The determinations made by the Chairman would be binding on the Government as well as on the Pharmacy Guild and its members.

The Pharmacy Guild would withdraw its High Court writ.

The Pharmacy Guild would agree to forego past payments which it believed were owing to chemists from past unsettled inquiries.

The Guild accepted that an offer made in April 1976 by the Government to increase chemists’ professional fees by 5c from 1 July 1973 had been withdrawn.

A new inquiry into pharmacy earnings, costs and profits would be carried out in 1977-78 to obtain up-to-date data for further reviews of chemists’ rates of remuneration.

A 6c increase in fees was to be paid from 1 July 1975 and a further 5c from 1 January 1977.

In December 1976 the National Health Act was amended to provide for the establishment of a Joint Committee on Pharmaceutical Benefits

Pricing Arrangements comprising four government officials, four nominees of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and an independent Chairman. The Chairman of the Joint Committee in consultation with the Committee members was charged with the responsibility for determining, at the specific request of either the Minister or the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the level of remuneration to be paid to chemists for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits to the public. The Chairman’s determination was to be binding on both the Government and the Guild. In addition, where members made a unanimous recommendation to the Chairman his determination was to accord with that recommendation.

Mr Justice Ludeke was appointed Chairman on 13 January 1977 and planning for the 1977-78 inquiry commenced under the aegis of the new statutory Joint Committee at that time. In April 1977 the Chairman of the Joint Committee determined that the level of chemists’ remuneration should be increased by 12c per prescription on and from 1 July 1976. The decision was also taken to introduce a new method of updating fee levels.

In 1977 the Pharmacy Guild had advanced several proposals for varying amounts each of which, if agreed to, would have signficantly increased the then current fee levels. These cases were the result of the Guild’s dissatisfaction from the failure to reach agreement on the outcome of the 1972-73 inquiry. The Guild’s aim was to establish an acceptable level of remuneration which could be updated during the course of the 1977-78 inquiry and which it confidently expected would be validated by the 1977-78 inquiry.

With the Joint Committee operating on the basis of conciliation and facing several ambit claims presented by the Pharmacy Guild to increase remuneration by up to 60c per prescription, the Government officials felt obliged to present a tough counter proposition which adopted the position that the figures available purported to show a posible excess payment. The Chairman in the absence of firm cost information from either party decided that the matter could not be resolved until the 1977-78 inquiry had been completed.

The excess payment figure presented by the government officials- which was claimed to be 23c per item- was based on a number of assumptions, some of which were subsequently rejected by the Chairman for inclusion in the processing of the 1977-78 inquiry. I should stress that this figure cannot be, nor should it be, related to the outcome of the 1977-78 inquiry. As I said earlier, it simply represented an initial bargaining position for discussion in the Joint Committee at that time.

In February 1978 the Chairman, after considering the cases presented by Guild and Government representatives, declined to approve an increase in the fee level. But in May 1978, on the basis of updating procedures, the Chairman made a determination granting an increase of 9c in fee level with effect from 1 July 1977. On 19 May 1978 he made a further determination reducing the mark-up on cost of goods sold, and increasing the fee level to compensate.

In September 1978 consideration was again given to representations from the Guild that an increase be granted. Government officials stated that they were unable to agree to a further increase and that there was a need for the Committee to approach the question of future increases with considerable caution because of the possibility of an excess payment, as might have been expected. The Chairman sought an indication from Guild representatives on what the Guild’s position would be if the 1977-78 inquiry results demonstrated that an excess payment situation existed. He had earlier indicated that there were still considerable uncertainties to be resolved in the 1977-78 inquiry and that if there was ultimately an under or over-payment he considered it could be adjusted retrospectively to 1 July 1976. The Chairman requested the Guild to make its views known at the next Joint Committee meeting. He then determined an increase of 5c per prescription, with effect from 1 July 1 977, on the basis of the updating procedures.

On 17 March 1979, after further processing of the inquiry data, my predecessor was informed by his Department of the real prospect of an excess payment situation existing. Mr Hunt sought urgent discussions with senior colleagues and agreement was reached that every endeavour should be made to expedite the results of the 1977-78 inquiry because of the absolute necessity for informaton to put beyond all doubt the question of whether or not an excess payment situation existed. It was also agreed that any further increases in remuneration should be strongly opposed in Joint Committee, pending the resolution of the excess payment question, and that appropriate action should be taken in the light of the Chairman’s determination on the 1977-78 inquiry.

The Joint Committee reached decisions on the numerous matters necessary to finalise the processing of the data gathered during the inquiry. This was completed during the November 1979. Later, following analysis by the secretariat to the Joint Committee and by departmental officers, the problem which I now describe became evident. A comparison of the 1977-78 inquiry results with the updated 1972-73 figures disclosed a disproportionate increase in labour costs as they applied to the retail side of chemists’ operations as against labour costs involved in dispensing. I must reiterate that this comparison could only be made after the 1977-78 results became available.

An investigation into this error showed that it had occurred in the translation of certain statistical specifications into computer-based systems specifications to be used for allocating labour costs for the 1972-73 inquiry. The computer program written from these specifications failed specifically to allocate retail labour costs, which were then automatically allocated in the same proportion as dispensing labour costs. The result of this misallocation was that the costs attributed to National Health prescriptions were inflated and the costs attributed to the retail sector of pharmacy were proportionately lowered. In the final analysis the inquiry showed an increase in the level of remuneration much greater than that which would have applied if the error had not occurred. The error was made by one of a number of programming staff provided by a firm which had contracted to supply the Department of Health with the services of seven consultants for a number of automatic data processing projects. The consultant worked under the immediate supervision of departmental ADP staff. A spot checking system operated in relation to all work but these checks did not reveal the error in the specification. It appears that testing was carried out in respect of individual components of the system but certain test data relating to the particular area could not be checked because the system design was such that certain necessary ratios could not be made available. A check against sample manual calculations, which was a feature of the 1977-78 inquiry, was not carried out in respect of the 1 972-73 inquiry.

As I said earlier, there were severe staffing shortages during the latter part of 1 974 and early 1975 when testing was being carried out. I should add that unavoidable movement of certain key staff also took place at that time. The complex relationships which existed between the Chairman, the Joint Committee, its subcommittee, its secretariat and departmental units, and the tight timetable which applied, should also be borne in mind when considering how this error arose. I think honourable members should be aware that a great deal was learnt from the problems that the 1972-73 inquiry revealed particularly in relation to any timetable that might be involved in collecting and interpreting the necessary data.

Flowing from this experience certain important changes were made in the design of the 1977-78 inquiry, particularly in relation to the computer program. The main changes were: The 1972-73 inquiry was used as a bench mark against which the development of the 1977-78 inquiry could be tested; the specifications which set out the methodology for the 1977-78 inquiry were expressed in plain English- not mathematical terms- which reduced the complexity of the inquiry and therefore minimised the possibility of misinterpretation; and revised procedures allowed the adoption of a better timetable for development, testing and checking of the various components of the inquiry. In addition, a higher level of co-ordination was possible between the areas involved because of the experience gained in the earlier inquiry.

Honourable members may ask why some of this experience was not obtained from the 1964-65 inquiry. The simple answer is that the first inquiry, as I mentioned earlier, was carried out by an independent firm of consultants and the Joint Committee exercised only a supervisory role. This meant that the Department did not obtain first-hand experience in the design and conduct of a major inquiry of this nature which could have been used in determining the arrangements made for the 1972-73 inquiry. What all this means is that we were able to apply checks and balances to the 1977-78 inquiryparticularly in the development stages- which, with the benefit of hindsight, should have been applied to the 1972-73 inquiry.

In addition to the problems of setting a new level of remuneration on the basis of the inquiry, problems also occurred in the updating of remuneration between inquiries. Successive governments have been aware of these problems. There has also been general recognition of the need to strike a reasonable balance between claims of chemists for regular updating of fee levels to compensate for inflationary pressures and structural change in relation to the operation of pharmacies and the need for payments by the Commonwealth to be kept at levels which, naturally, are clearly justified. To help meet these problems action is at present being taken by officers of relevant departments to devise a set of appropriate labour indices which can be used for updating purposes. At this stage the most fruitful area of inquiry would seem to involve the use of award wage rates with necessary weightings for particular occupations. This has only become possible with the recent availability of the 1977-78 inquiry results. With this information we are now able to compare actual pharmacy costs with a forecast labour cost using an average weekly earnings based index, or other indices now judged to be more appropriate such as an award rate index related specifically to the pharmacy area.

I now return to the investigation made by the Public Service Board team. That investigation indicates that there does not appear to be evidence of criminal action by any person in connection with the matters reviewed. Having regard also, among other things, to the difficulties which were then encountered by Government officials at critical times during the period under review, the team did not consider that there was evidence of negligence or misconduct which would warrant action against any individual. My own examination- so far is it has gone- has given me no reason to disagree with these conclusions.

The Public Service Board team also made a number of suggestions. In summary these are: Firstly that all departments and authorities be reminded of their responsibility for the adequacy of standards, including controls and checking procedures, covering the development and operation of computer-based systems- the team noted that action had already been instituted in the case of the Department of Health; secondly, that similarly departments and authorities should be reminded of the need for adequate systems and procedures for checking and validating data used in the making of determinations; thirdly, that changes be made in arrangements for updating fees payable to chemists; fourthly, that alternative arrangements be made for the conduct of major reviews, that is, the possible use of more frequent but smaller surveys; fifthly, that ways be found to legally bind individual chemists in relation to determinations; sixthly, that consideration be given to the possibility of treating NHS and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits in total in assessing fees and mark-up, with potential for reduction in Commonwealth outlays; and seventhly, that the roles and lines of responsibility between the Chairman, the Joint Committee, the sub-committee, the secretariat and the Department of Health be clearly defined. The Government concurs with these recommendations and has instructed the Board to take appropriate action so that in future every effort will be made to ensure that there is no recurrence of the type of error made in the 1972-73 inquiry analysis arrangements, either in the Department of Health or elsewhere in the Government sector. This action is now being undertaken.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise that tonight I have taken honourable members through a complex and necessarily detailed series of events extending over many years. I can well understand that members might wish to have the opportunity to explore the matter further. However, to facilitate informed discussion the Government believes that there would be particular advantage if the matter was to be referred to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts for examination and report. In doing so, the Government invites the Committee to make recommendations on how administrative processes could be tightened up beyond those changes suggested in the report of the Public Service Board team. The report of the Public Service Board team will be made available on a confidential basis to the Committee. The Government also believes that the report should be forwarded to the AuditorGeneral. I have written to the Committee and the Auditor-General advising them of this. I seek leave to table copies of these letters.

Leave granted.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I wish to conclude my statement on this issue by emphasising that it is an extremely difficult area. It has caused successive governments for some 15 years significant difficulties which have had to be borne because of the importance of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme to all Australians. The technical problems involved led to the error I have described tonight in ‘.his statement. On confirmation of the existence of this error, the Government acted swiftly to discover the reasons for it and instigate appropriate action to ensure that every action will be taken in future to prevent the recurrence of this or similar errors.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-by leave-There is a certain irony in the fact that the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar), who got up in this House yesterday and defended the policies of this Government in the health field on the sole ground of their cost containment, now appears before this House to explain $235m in excess payments to pharmacists. This Government, throughout the past four years, has justified every mutilation of Medibank on the grounds of cost containment. It has justified in debate every inconsistent and contradictory change to the health schemes of this country, not with arguments in favour of those changes but on the grounds of the necessity of cost containment. Tonight the Government is trying to explain an excess payment of $235m.

I must say at this stage that the statement presented by the Minister is inadequate, and I will suggest the ways in which it is inadequate. First of all, let us deal with the obfuscation in the paper about exactly what is the size of the excess payment. We are offered by the Minister two total figures. One is $ 105m, and that is based on the average pharmacy level of remuneration. The other is $235m, which is based on the economic pharmacy calculation. Now, as the whole benefits scheme, the whole system of remuneration, is based on the economic pharmacy calculation, then that is the calculation we must use. The scheme is worked out in terms of the economic pharmacy calculation and the remunerations have been paid since the middle 1970s on that basis. Therefore, let us have no obfuscation; let us not have two sets of figures. Let us use the correct figure, and that is an excess payment of $2 3 5 m. That is the overpayment we are discussing. The Minister has tried with a technical trick, which is typical of this Government, to disguise what the real overpayment is in terms of the basic procedures of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, which of course must provide us with a basis for these measurements.

Not only has he obfuscated the issue in this way, but he seems also quite ashamed to tell us what is the payment involved per prescription. We know now a total figure of $235m, but if one does the calculations on the number of prescriptions a year under the benefits scheme, that means an overpayment of approximately 60c per prescription. Taking the $235m figure, that is an overpayment of about 60c per prescription in the period we are talking about. Costs have changed in that period, of course, but on average it is about 60c per prescription. When we also discover that in 1977, roughly the middle year of the period we are talking about, the pharmacists’ remuneration under the system worked out at $1.70 per prescription, that is not too bad, is it? If most of us could get an overpayment of 60c on each $1.70 we would be doing rather well out of the system. I am not surprised that the Minister did not mention that per prescription figure in the analysis he gave us because it is an extremely disturbing figure. It suggests, in a sense, the blindness of the Health Department in not picking up a discrepancy of this order.

The Minister goes on to explain that this $2 3 5 m, this excess payment figure, should be seen as notional only. That is $235m of taxpayers’ money down the drain, and it is notional only. It is true, and I accept the evidence he has given, that it is probable there is no chance of recovering these payments. The Minister has had legal advice, and I have to accept that advice. But I do not believe that the fact that the Government cannot recover these overpayments allows it just to treat this as a notional loss, a notional excess payment. I think that that amount is something the taxpayers of Australia are unlikely to consider as being simply a notional overpayment.

As the Minister pointed out, the excess payments were due to two factors: Firstly, an error which occurred in 1974 in the translation of the statistical specifications to be used for allocating labour costs; and secondly, and much less importantly, the method of updating determinations. As the Minister pointed out, the major problem was primarily the error which occurred in 1974 in the translation of the statistical specifications to be used for allocating labour costs. The question the House has to ask itself is this: Why, with all the resources at the disposal of the Health Department, do we wait six years to be told of this error, something like five years, according to the Minister’s statement, for the error actually to be discovered? We are dealing with a fairly massive bureaucracy in this field. I find that in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Branch of the Department of Health 660 persons are at work doing statistics, calculations and checks on costs. All of those 660 have apparently overlooked this kind of massive excess payment for five years. Perhaps that is not completely accurate. Some evidence in the Minister’s statement suggests that there was alarm and disquiet at a much earlier period. Should the Department of Health have been aware, not perhaps of the actual amount of the overpayment or of the source of the problem, but that there was some problem in regard to the payment to pharmacists?

If we look at the report of the Ralph Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Inquiry we will find some quite interesting figures about the situation of pharmacists in this country in relation to PBS prescriptions. For instance, we learn there that the pharmacist in Australia is getting a bigger percentage share of the dispensed price than pharmacists receive in any other country but Canada. There is evidence in the report that the proportion ofthe dispensed price of PBS pharmaceuticals received by the retail sector in Australia has been increasing. The report pointed out that the pharmacists’ remuneration was rising faster than the cost of pharmaceuticals. It noted that the pharmacist’s share of the prescription dollar has increased significantly. So there was that evidence to suggest perhaps another look at the situation of pharmacists. But when we look at the document before us we find evidence of unease about these payments in early 1976. We find that as early as 1976 there were worries in the Department of Health about the situation. The Minister in his statement said:

There was, however, some uneasiness among officials ac the time about the figures relating to the question of the treatment of costs of goods sold in the inquiry which led them to initiate another survey on this particular aspect.

There were worries and concerns early in 1 976. An inquiry was conducted and errors of 8c per item for 1973-74 and 5c per item for 1974-75 were found. Why did those discoveries not alert the officials to the type of problem that they were facing? There was some uneasiness and some investigation as far back as early 1976.

Then we have this quite extraordinary story about what the officials were doing in about the middle of 1 977. We read this: . . Government officials felt obliged to present a tough counter proposition which adopted the position that the figures available purported to show a possible excess payment … the excess payment figure presented by the Government officials- which was claimed to be 23c per item- was based on a number of assumptions, some of which were subsequently rejected I should stress that this figure cannot be nor should it be, related to the outcome of the 1977-78 inquiry. As I said earlier, it simply represented an initial bargaining position for discussion in the Joint Committee at the time.

Obviously if the officials were engaged in this bargaining operation they could have bargained about many things. It is interesting to note that what they argued at that stage was that there were excess payments- possibly up to 23c per item. What was the basis of this argument? Why did they advance that particular claim? It seems that when the situation was discussed in mid- 1977 at least some people in the Department of Health were worried about excess payments and were not just engaged in a bargaining game. They were presenting some evidence of concern. By the end of 1978, 18 months ago, we find that- to quote from the statement:

Government officials stated that they were unable to agree to a further increase and that there was a need for the Committee to approach the question of future increases with considerable caution because of the possibility of an ‘excess payment’.

Thus by the end of 1978 there semed to be a more positive worry, but ever since 1976 there has been a series of worries about these payments.

Finally, over a year ago, on 27 March 1979, the then Minister for Health was informed by his Department of the real prospect of an excess payment situation. We have to ask the Minister and his Department why it was not until March 1979 that they were at least prepared to say that there was a real prospect of an excess payment situation when there was accumulating evidence of a real concern in the Department about these payments. It is difficult to believe that there was not a real concern in the Department much earlier than March 1979. Nor do I believe the excuse next offered, that the Department was not able to establish those facts clearly until the 1977-78 inquiry had been completed. It seems to me unbelievable that that Department, with the resources available to it, could not have taken firm action at that stage, when it believed that there was a real prospect of an excess payment situation, rather than wait for the 1977-78 inquiry to be completed. This is a disturbing story about a major bureaucracy with evidence that suggests action should have been taken much earlier.

Out of this report and this evidence of disquiet, of worries, of concern and of bargaining games about excess payments comes the question: Who is to blame for the loss of $235m of taxpayers money? According to the Minister’s statement it was decided that that computer shall be victim, or at least the programmer for that computer program in 1973-74. It is clear, of course, that there were fairly sloppy procedures in relation to that computer program. I note that a spotchecking system was used which failed to pick up the error in the labour specifications which were the source of the problem. There is a marvellous sentence in the Minister’s speech. I ask him what it means. He said:

It appears that testing was carried out in respect of individual components of the system but certain test data relating to the particular area could not be checked because the system designed was such that certain necessary ratios could not be made available.

I do not understand what that means. It is rather technical gobbledegook, but the Minister may be able to explain it. More importantly, the Minister stated:

A check against sample manual calculations which was not carried out in respect of the 1 972-73 inquiry.

That again suggests fairly poor supervision because it is almost standard practice for computer programs of this nature to have checks of sample manual calculations. Certainly one is very glad to know that there have been improvements in the computer programming for 1977-78. On the tale that the Minister has provided about the way the operation was carried out in 1 973-74, one is very glad indeed to know that there have been major improvements in the way the programming operation was conducted in 1977-78.

The statement concludes by saying that despite the fact that $235m was overpaid, there is no evidence of any criminal action by any person in connection with the matters reviewed. I accept that. Again, apparently there is no evidence of negligence or misconduct which would warrant action against any individual. An amount of $235m has gone down the drain but all we can manage to attach blame to is an inadequate computer program for which nobody is really responsible. Nobody has really been negligent and nobody is really to blame. From the evidence that we have been given I do not believe that this Parliament should accept this explanation as adequate. I am grateful for some of the Public Service Board team’s proposals for the future. I think a number of them are particularly useful, although I would be very interested to find out the ways in which the Government would establish the means to bind individual chemists legally in relation to determinations. I certainly support the inquiry by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I can only hope that it will be a more forceful and more effective inquiry into the loss of this $235m than what the Parliament has been presented with tonight.

Motion (by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House take note ofthe statement.

Debate (on motion by Mr Bourchier) adjourned.

page 1652

AUSTRALIA’S RELATIONS WITH THE THIRD WORLD

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 26 March, on the following paper presented by Mr Peacock:

Australia’s Relations with the Third World- Ministerial Statement, 26 March 1980- and on motion by Mr Viner:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

-The Harries report has been well received by the Government because it represents essentially an endorsement ofthe status quo. It offers no new insights into the relationship between the First and the Third Worlds but, rather, restates the general views which have been advanced by Western interests whose primary concern is that there should be no fundamental change in the relationship between the First and the Third Worlds. It is unfortunate that the report commissioned by the Australian Government which, along with the Australian people, has such a fundamental interest in this subject should fail to throw new light or establish liberating attitudes on some of the key issues we face.

The report, along with the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock), looks at the issue within the context of East- West relations. While there is some analysis of the interests of the Soviet Union with respect to the Third World, there is no analysis of the disastrous failures of either the historic or contemporary policies of the First World with respect to less developing countries. There is, for example, no analysis of the colonial heritage which is fundamental to understanding the great inequality which exists between the developed and less developed world. Such an analysis might also have thrown light on some of the reasons for Australia’s historic failure to develop an independent foreign policy or to develop effectively social and economic policies which enable us to relate to the realities that do exist within the Third World. However, at the very least, such analysis is clearly crucial for any serious explanation of under-development in the Third World.

It is as if, when one reads this report, the term imperialism’, which is crucial to understanding the Third World, had never been used, had never been developed and had never been related to events in that world. Why the continuing dominance by the West over those societies which have supposedly gained independence is another question that the report does not seriously consider. In my view, any serious analysis ofthe economic relationships between the two worlds would require much closer attention to have been given, for example, to the concentration of international capital in the First World and the dominance of those giant firms over the economic interests of the Third World. One wonders also whether the report might have been more restricted to cover the Third World countries in our own region and the interrelationship with Australian and Western policies with the changes that have occurred there. Why, for example, is there so little analysis in the report of the tragedy which has been modern Indo-China and the failure of Australian-United States policies in those regions?

Last week, the Minister for Foreign Affairs supplied me with an answer to a question concerning the bombing of Cambodia in 1970. It is quite clear that over a period of four or five years that country was almost bombed out of existence, allowing the destabilising of internal political relations and the emergence of a government with extremely limited support, which proceeded in tragic circumstances to pursue policies which were to have, if anything, even more disastrous consequences. This illegal war which was pursued in the most clandestine way by an American President whose grasp on reason would appear to have been slight was supported by the Australian Government even while it was being kept hidden from the American Congress. Despite the appalling consequences of that war in which a whole population was disrupted and with thousands killed, there was not the slightest word of protest from the Australian Government whose respected Foreign Minister almost a decade later continues to use the polspeak which was used by the Americans to justify their massive intervention in a sovereign country in search of a victory in Vietnam which they could never hope to win. The memory of Australia ‘s role in the Vietnam War will live in Indo-China for generations. It will inevitably cast a shadow over any relations we hope to establish in the future. Whilst the Harries report at least suggests in its own cynical way that we should not seek knowingly to exploit divisions in the Soviet bloc, Australia, with only the slightest excuse, cut off our minimal aid to Vietnam for that country’s allowing people to leave Vietnam at a time when the fiercely nationalistic Vietnamese were on the verge of being taught a lesson’ by the Chinese. Surely in terms of Australia’s interests the effective reconstruction of Vietnam ought to have been a matter of the greatest priority.

Further, Australia has lessons to learn from the tragedies of the 1960s. But there is no evidence in the Harries report that any of these lessons have been learnt. One of the lessons is that we should be wary of analysis of the Third World, simply in terms of the attitudes, the policies and even the actions of the Third World governments in isolation from some real attempt to understand the more complex social and political forces that might operate in any . given society. Australia and the Harries report, in their search for stability, might well be underestimating the force of the undercurrents which exist in countries in the Asia-Pacific basin. One has only to think of the potential instability of the regime of President Marcos in the Philippines, a government which appears unable and unwilling to respond to the aspirations of a predominantly rural nation in which government policies continue to foster greater and greater repression and inequality rather than equity. It is a country in which the internal policies of the Government are subservient time and again to the interests of the United States and the corporations based in that country. Similarly, the death of President Park Chung Hee of South Korea was no doubt a sign of the smouldering discontent which exists in that society, where forced development on Western lines has been carried through at the expense of basic human rights, fundamental freedoms and opportunities for ordinary people to influence national priorities.

Australia has itself felt the hot breath of Indonesian imperialism in West Irian and more recently in East Timor. Does one really imagine that one understands the motives behind such actions with reference only to the official reasons stated by Indonesian military officials and governors. Clearly one does not understand what is likely to occur over the longer term to Indonesia if there is not developed in Australia some understanding of the social and political processes which are at work in that society. It is the sheer ignorance of our neighbours which, in my view, represents the major threat to Australia’s developing any effective regional foreign policy.

This point correlates with another that I wish to make- that there is present in the Harries report no analytical discussion of the theory of development which is, after all, supposed to be in many senses the principal purpose of the report; that is, to illuminate the problems associated with development in the Third World. It would appear to me an assumption of this report that the pattern of successive development in the Third World will be based on the industrialisation model which has been followed by the West.

There is in the report no discussion of alternative models of development that are being pursued by different countries within the Third World or indeed, within our own region. This means that the report does not raise questions about the absurd rhetoric indulged in by Australian politicians, particularly by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), which refers constantly to the economic miracle of particular countries without any notion of what might be the consequences associated with that particular strategy. The end result is that Australians are almost oblivious of the problems associated with lopsided development as it has taken place in major countries in our region. We are not sensitive to the value-laden ambiguous character of modern technology and its massive capacity for destruction, either here in Australia or more seriously, in developing countries, if it is not fully evaluated. The result is that there is no discussion in the report of issues raised, for example, by figures associated with the World Bank, such as Mahbub Al Haq. He talked about ‘development as the eradication of poverty rather than the pursuit of economic growth, as the generation of employment more than GDP, and requiring the injection of distributional issues into the very pattern and organisation of production’.

It simply is not possible to avoid serious discussion of development without taking account of this last point. The form of production does have written into it distributional consequences. These consequences can be catastrophic for large sections of the population as indeed they are if one looks at the patterns of development associated with many of our Asian nations. The sources of capital encouraging that development and the policies associated with that capital are therefore crucial. For example, institutions such as the World Bank have had a critical role in the penetration of agri-business in the Third World. The World Bank is the leading multinational provider of the requisite rural infrastructure such as irrigation facilities, dams, feeder roads et cetera and agricultural credit, as well as providing large scale direct assistance to crop and livestock production and to related industries. In addition, it provides funds for high yield grain research associated with the green revolution. As Stryker has suggested:

In these activities the Bank can be viewed as the vanguard of the latest phase of capitalist expansion in which the resource rich Third World is fully incorporated into the world capitalist economy.

The end result is that in countries in which feeding the local population ought to be the major preoccupation, more and more land is being given over to cash crop production- for example, so that people in Western Europe can eat fresh vegetables in the winter. The Bank’s policies draw attention to the power of the First World to determine the pattern of development in the Third World. However, the major influence in the drive towards industrialisation as the appropriate model of development of the Third World comes from the transnational corporations. Increasingly these corporations re-locate their activities in the Third World to achieve the combination of high technology, cheap raw materials and cheap labour. The lack of capital in the Third World has meant that a number of governments are providing a large range of concessions in export zones- tax concessions, a disciplined non-union labour force, subsidised energy, assistance with infrastructure and goods made predominantly for export.

Furthermore, the development of these zones occurs without any regard to the needs of the country concerned. They are islands of development which provide very large profits for the companies concerned but do not necessarily contribute to the overall pattern of development in the country concerned. As a result of the adoption of such policies, it is possible to have at one and the same time talk of impressive growth records on the part of some developing countries while there continue to be within the same countries enormous problems of underdevelopment, growing inequality and growing rural poverty. The Harries report does not effectively challenge these strategies either on the part of international institutions, such as the World Bank, or on the part of transnational corporations. It does not call for the restructuring of these international agencies, such as the World Bank, or effectively call for greater controls over the activities of the transnational corporations in the Third World. It has no particular solution to the problems of the growing indebtedness in the Third World, nor does it call, as the Brandt Commission did, for a shift of power within international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, away from donor countries and towards the receiving countries. Whilst there is a great deal of discussion of the so-called new international economic order within the report, there appears to be no recognition of the reality that the order is increasingly being seen by the group of 77 countries as a way of avoiding serious commitment to the developing world. It would appear that there was considerable disillusionment at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in May and August last year. As Ho Kwon Ping of the Far Eastern Economic Review, referring to the UNCTAD Conference in May 1979, said:

The main strategy of the developing world up to UNCTAD V had been one of marshalling its energies against the West, to change the rules of trade, to prise open markets, and to force access to higher technology and capital flows. The failure of UNCTAD V on this score has a silver lining: it has forced many developing countries to reassess this strategy, and to give greater weight towards ‘collective self-reliance’ as a concrete program and not a slogan.

After the Asian conference had adjourned, one Asian delegate stated:

The North-South dialogue has run out of words. The EastSouth dialogue (between the Soviet bloc and the Third World) cannot find even a common language, so the Third Development Decade may see the beginning of a true SouthSouth dialogue. That, in the end, may be the greatest achievement of the long days and nights of Manila.

Similarly, the conference at Vienna failed to achieve any significant concession from the West either in terms of the control over transnational corporations or the transfer of science and technology, despite the fact that the imbalance with respect to research and development is obviously so great. The report suggests by way of conclusion that we should aim in our relationships with the Third World to achieve a balance as between economic growth, social development and political stability. However, particularly in our own region, if present patterns of economic growth are persisted with, the end result can only be more and more political instability. Insofar as much of this growth is imposed from outside particular countries- that is, encouraged by international institutions- there is some chance for Australia to influence those institutions and, therefore, the pattern of development. It is on this that the Harries report has failed to provide a framework.

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

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

– I welcome the opportunity to speak on this occasion. However, it should be made clear that it is not possible in the time available to cover very many aspects of interest mentioned in the report of the Committee on Australia’s Relations with the Third World which we have before us today. I think it is worth noting that the report was forwarded by the Chairman, Professor Owen Harries on 10 April last year to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) and was tabled in this House by the Minister on 1 8 September of the same year. It is significant to mention these dates because it should be borne in mind that at the very time the report was being tabled in this House, the nonaligned nations were meeting in Havana. When one considers what has happened among the Third World countries since the writing of this report and the tabling of it in the Parliament, I believe that much included in the report is out of date. Attention should be drawn to certain definitions in the report as to what constituted a Third World country. In determining what countries to examine, it seems a glaring anomaly to me that Cuba, totally subservient to the international policies of the Soviet Union, should be so regarded and included. Yet Yugoslavia, admittedly a politically committed communist country which has been fighting very successfully the continuing threat of Soviet domination for a generation and which has been accepted as the leader of the non-aligned movement internationally, has been excluded from the consideration by the Harries Committee. No doubt the Committee saw the problem and sheltered behind the ease of mere geographic description. I believe that the report suffers because of this.

The next question I wish to deal with is the distinction which is implicitly made between the

Third World as defined by Professor Harries and the non-aligned movement itself. This latter group, which is thought to number approximately 65 of the United Nations countries, surely demanded total inclusion in any report looking into the relationships between Australia and the Third World. Again, I refer to Yugoslavia which has been long regarded as leader of the nonaligned countries. With over 350,000 Australians born in Yugoslavia, it is a serious gap that any report on our relationships on the Third World that Yugoslavia should not have been included in the countries under consideration. I would sincerely hope that this omission of Yugoslavia from this report will not be repeated and compounded by the Department of Foreign Affairs in the follow-up actions which the Minister has promised.

For my part, I include the non-aligned countries in any description of the Third World. Perhaps it would be of interest to the House to relate one description made recently of the non-aligned nations. It has been said that they come in three streams: Cuba, Algeria and Ethiopia and others which are satellites of the Soviet Union; secondly, the kingdoms and lightest Middle East states which have leaned towards the United States of America; and thirdly, the mainstream which is left of centre forming the bulk of nonaligned membership which is led by such countries as Yugoslavia and India. If one could have looked at this report as having included all nonaligned countries, an emphasis could have been given in this debate to the significance of the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Non-aligned Countries which was held in Havana in September 1979. 1 shall resist the temptation to talk at length on this conference which had 95 participating countries, while another 28 countries were there with observer status. I am sure that all participating countries saw themselves as members of the Third World. The comparison of countries attending the Havana conference and those included in the Harries report is interesting. The second point of definition that I would raise relates to the description that should be given to Australia. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) on 26 March in his speech in relation to the report stated:

  1. . fails to acknowledge that Australians are first and foremost Australians.

Secondly, he said:

The crux of the problem with the . . . report is that it sees Australia as a Western country with Western interests.

The reaction of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was perhaps an emotional one. Of course, the report does not spell out the nationalism of Australian policy or of Australians themselves, but it is implicit in all the Committee’s deliberations. As for the criticism that Australia is not a Western country with Western interests, let us look at the reality. Nowhere in Asia, Africa, the Middle East or South America are we regarded as anything other than a Western countryculturally, economically and politically. In South East Asia we are regarded as a Western country, geographically placed near Asia. Despite our growing interest and concern with matters in Asia, the reality is that nobody regards us as Asians nor, because of our relatively greater wealth and income per capita, does anyone in that region regard us as a developing Third World country. We are, as the report says on page 177, Western with a difference. Whether this description meets the wishes of all members of the Parliament, whether it reaches the point as put forward by J. T. Smith in his dissenting report as perplexing to the Third World, or whether this very situation should be the subject of future change, the reality today is that we are a medium-sized power associated with the Western power group. This must remain, at least in the foreseeable future, as a basic strategic requirement for Australia’s own welfare. To pose as a member of the Third World would be dishonest and would be seen to be dishonest by member countries of that indistinctly described group of countries known as the Third World.

We are what we are. We may change. There could be- in fact there are- good arguments which suggest that we ought to change in the years ahead. But our security and our welfarehonourable members may call this selfish if they wish- are associated with the conglomerate Western power of the United States of America, part of the Commonwealth of Nations and the European Economic Community. Nevertheless, this association can never be exclusive. I ask honourable members to think of our association with Japan. It can never be restrictive. When we think of our associations with the countries of the Middle East and South East Asia- they can never be selfish. I also ask honourable members to think of our obligations to be involved in matters relating to the affairs of southern Africa. But on balance, it must be seen and acknowledged in this Parliament that for all our concern in the area of aid which brings its own responsibilities, or in the area of human rights which must know no political or geographic restriction, or in the area of economic survival- the need of which nobody would dare deny- in the final analysis

Australia is a Western country, albeit with a difference.

Having been an official guest of the Yugoslav Government in 1979 I entered this debate acutely aware of the need for constant surveillance by the Third World in order to see that it is not conquered militarily, philosophically or economically by the Soviet Union with its violent expansionist thrust in these three areas of activity among small and even not so small Third World countries. At this stage one need but mention the Russian rape of Afghanistan on which I have spoken in this House quite recently. To assume that Third World countries are automatically independent is fatuous. I believe that the role of Cuba must be considered at this time. Is Fidel Castro the right person to speak as the titular leader of the Third World? Is he the logical successor to Tito in this regard? If he is so regarded, will we see the Third World so dominated by the Soviet Union that it becomes a mere satellite or a collection of satellites of the Kremlin? Or shall we see President Sadat as the man who can show his fellow Third World leaders how to remain unhindered by super power pressure in achieving national gains for one ‘s country?

However, there have been two events in the past year which have had profound influences on the whole of the Third World and which took place after the tabling of this report. The first, namely the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries, was actually being held in Havana when the Harries report was being tabled in this House. The second was the subsequent blatant and vicious invasion and rape of Afghanistan- itself a delegate to the Havana conference- by the Soviet Union. The question that must occupy the minds of many world observers in trying to ascertain why Russia chose cynically to invade Afghanistan when it did, is to what extent it was related to the success of its totally entrapped satellite leader, Fidel Castro, in Havana in September when the non-aligned countries moved in a decidedly anti-American direction. It must not be forgotten that in Havana Castro had described the Soviet Union as the ‘natural ally’ of the poorer nations of the world. Castro’s success over the aging Tito for supremacy among the non-aligned leaders was almost complete and apart from the independent statements put forward by such leaders as Tanzania’s President Nyerere, most observers from the West admitted that Castro and his radicals won the day in Havana last September.

Could it be that the success of Castro, or in reality of the Soviet Union, at Havana in September 1979 and the thought that the nonaligned world could be counted on for support, was the encouragement that the Soviet Union needed so that it could rape Afghanistan without a murmur from the Third World? I believe that this could well have been the case. If it were the case, then what a sorry commentary it was on Russia’s understanding of those sections of the non-aligned world which were not under total Soviet domination and occupation. Castro’s intention of leading the Third World into the arms of the Soviet Union was decisively halted. This is no more evidenced than when one looks at how the non-aligned world- or the Third World if honourable members prefer to call it thatreacted in the United Nations. In the 104 to 18 United Nations vote deploring the invasion and calling for immediate unconditional withdrawal of the foreign troops from Afghanistan, the nonaligned nations voted 56 to nine in favour of the resolution. A wider examination of the voting patterns of the Third World non-aligned nations plus 22 other developing countries showed that 78 were in favour of the rebuke, nine were against it, 18 abstained and 10 were marked as absentees. On only one other previous issue- the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia- have the socalled Third World nations lined up so strongly against Russia and its satellites. Not only has the standing of Russia in the Third World deteriorated dramatically, but also the Afghanistan war has seen a complete falling from grace of the Soviet satellite, Cuba, in the eyes of its former non-aligned and Third World friends.

There can be no doubt that there has been a dramatic change in the alliances within the Third World. I can only hope that the professional officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs will be as alert to this dramatic- or perhaps it is traumatic- change in their reporting back to Australia as the Minister for Foreign Affairs has shown himself to be. I commend the Minister for having visited a wide range of Asian countries subsequent to the Afghanistan invasion. I hope that his departmental officers have picked up the message. It would be tragic if Australia ‘s overseas diplomatic representatives had not alerted themselves to what has already happened and were not watching out for these changes in alliances, particularly on the African continent and in the Middle East area. It is essential and vital to an outward-looking nation like Australia that its diplomatic and trade promotion representatives are keenly observing the changes.

Whatever may be happening in many parts of the Third World, I believe that it is vital that we as Australians follow closely what is happening in Cuba. The admission that Russian troops are on Cuban soil, the surprise realisation by the West in recent days that thousands of African students are being trained there and the recent Cabinet reshuffle show that we would do well to follow what is happening in the Cuban area. I am sorry that time has cut short my speech. I am sure the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) will be disappointed that it has been cut short. I believe that it is essential for Australia to realise that Cuba is the key to what is happening in the Third World. Its relationship with Russia is something we cannot ignore. I hope that, as a result of this report and as a result of the promise from the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he will be making a report within three months, we will see a full realisation of what is happening in the Third World, with events in Cuba and the deterioration of Yugoslavia as focal points in the months to come.

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

– I will not comment on the points made by the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), except to say that I disagree with him somewhat about the role of Cuba insofar as its effect on Australia is concerned. We have heard of the north-south dialogue. Australia is in the south geographically, to use that terminology. We now have before us the report of the Committee on Australia’s Relations with the Third World. I think I can say that probably no more important report has come before this Parliament. Given our geography, this report has the most profound implications for our foreign policy, our trade and even our defence. The Harries report says that one of the things that defines the Third World is its ideological position. Principally what gives it ideological coherence is its anti- Western stance. This ideology of the Third World has an anti-Western bias, especially in that it is hostile to capitalism and sees Western policy as serving largely the interests of capitalism.

The Harries report says that we should be aware of that because we live in this part of the world and are identified as a Western nation. It is all right to lump us in with the First World- I do not object to that particularly- but we need to accept that we can do a lot more and that we are in a position to do a lot more than many of the other First World countries, due not just to geography but also to the fact that we are only a small-medium power and that we can show that principle ahead of pragmatism on many occasions. My overall criticism of this report is that it is a profoundly conservative document. It sets down a whole heap of positions and more or less says that Australia can react to these sorts of situations.

Like previous speakers, I have no time to talk about one-tenth of the issues that are in this report or one-twentieth of the issues that we should be talking about when we talk about our relationships with the poorer countries on this earth. I thank the Minister for bringing the report back into the House for debate. It disappeared for a while. His response was slim but it has been a little reassuring on some aspects. Like the honourable member for Cook, I look forward to future reports. All the deliberations from now on are virtually in his court. I do not like the bit in the report about the setting up of an interdepartmental committee because it will depend very much on how much vigilance the Department of Foreign Affairs can exercise. Recently, the Department of Transport wanted to implement measures without consulting the Association of South East Asian Nations on air fares. It is very important that the Department of Foreign Affairs maintains the vigilance that is necessary so that Australia’s international relations are’ not impaired by the actions of other departments which do not take into account even the very conservative recommendations of this report.

I think we need to congratulate the Minister for asking for this report. Few developed countries could put forward such a report with such recommendations. I think that that reflects the fact that Australia is a small Western power and that it can take on these sorts of recommendations, conservative as they may be. The test will be what policy prescriptions follow from it- not just the implementation of a few recommendations but more doctrinal matters. We have to build up from this report a better development philosophy, a better approach to what are the real problems of the Third World and not just simply assume that we are an outpost of Western capitalism and that we cannot do much more than go along with the larger Western capitalist powers. The report tends to be adjustive, that is that Australia can only react. In other words, it is a report for the status quo; it is a report that reiterates general views.

The report could have been subject to criticism of tokenism- the east-west and north-south debate, the aid debate, the new international economic order and those sorts of things- but I think it does avoid that sort of tokenism. I think we should also refer to the excellent report of the Senate on the same question. But the report could have referred in a more positive manner to

Third World development. In terms of development, I think it is somewhat wishy-washy. It refers mainly to the responsibility ofthe developed nations. For example, it does not really touch on the Third United Nations Development Decade at a time when the United Nations, specialised agencies and the World Bank are in discussion on this matter. It does not discuss the international development strategy to the extent that I would like or analyse the failures of past policies, particularly with respect to developmental aid.

The first development decade, as honourable members will know, concentrated on aid pure and simple. The second development decadethat was the 1970s- was medicinal but certainly not enough. The aid was to try to correct problems. Now we have to get into the prophylactic area. We have to set up in the developing decade ahead the sorts of strategies that will give the countries the means to have self-sustaining growth. Even the World Bank, which I would stylise as a conservative organisation, is getting away from infrastructure and is trying to get its assistance away from the elite and down to the people. The reason why I am pessimistic on many of these things and why the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) was trenchant in his criticism of the report is that any objective analysis ofthe situation of the Third World, particularly the countries in our part of the world, will reveal that the situation is getting worse. For ASEAN countries, the smaller Pacific countries and many of the countries on the Pacific rim the situation is getting worse, particularly for the agricultural populations. We have heard a lot about ‘trickle down’, but some of the analyses point out that there is now a lot of sucking up. In other words, the funds that go into these countries do not trickle down to the poor people but in fact the poor people themselves get involved in having to divert some of their funds to the urban elite. We do not know what stage many of the developing countries have reached in our region, but we do know that the advantages of all the assistance over the past decades still has not been particularly marked.

Because of Australia’s special position on the edge of ASEAN and Asia the report should have acknowledged also the disturbing comments of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which said that the achievements of the past decade were very disappointing. The international development strategy for the 1 970s was rather disappointing. The actual growth on the surface for the years from 1970 to 1975 was impressive at some 7 per cent. But a closer look at the situation shows that in the poorest countries, and that includes some of the countries in Australia’s foreground, it fell seriously short of the target.

The agricultural survey of the Asian Development Bank on the past decade very objectively pointed to the bad situation, particularly with respect to agriculture. The survey said in part that the problem of rural poverty has considerably worsened in the last decade. It said that the most optimistic view which could be taken of the food situation is that the region is not much worse now than at the time of the first Asian agricultural survey, that the new technology essentially did nothing to curtail the growing number of landless labourers, and that the food growing deficits will be six times larger in the 1 980s than it was in the 1970s. So let us not be optimistic about the situations that some of these countries face.

The report is also wishy-washy on human rights. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said to the United Nations Assembly that human rights are too important for rhetoric. Yet Australia has an unbalanced and muted approach. He is reluctant to comment on some of the human rights matters in countries in our region. I suppose that that is for realpolitik reasons. But it needs to be commented on. The honourable member for Batman has commented on that. We cannot be inconsistent; we cannot be seen as reflecting these larger views. But we are in a position to express quietly and diplomatically our concerns with respect to human rights.

The report is good with respect to many details. It provides a wealth of information. Any objective person must say that. But it seems to me that “there is a need for a lot more sophisticated economic analysis. There are quite a few contradictions and conflicts within the report. For example, the report tries to separate the international economic context from the political context. That simply is not on. The report seems to treat political and economic issues differently. Political argument acknowledges the changes in world opinion and that we have been paternalistic and racially discriminating. So to that extent it is self-criticism. The report says, on the other hand, that economically we in the West have defended the free market faith. The effects have been translated through to the Third World and often those effects have been negligible or damaging. It seems to imply that if the developing countries hitched themselves on to this marvellous free international market somehow they would be able to pull themselves up.

Basically, that is a lot of nonsense and it is subject to a lot of qualification. I am not so sure that there is an international free market that can be identified if one starts looking at monopolies and transnational corporations. If one looks at the trading blocs such as the European Economic Community, which act completely against free market forces, one realises how quickly any model of international free market liberalism falls down. Even the New International Economic Order, which is a document setting out the demands of the developing countries, must inevitably be seen as involving government intervention and reductions in the efficiency of the socalled liberal market system.

The report under-estimates the existing global levels of trade protection against developing country exports. It argues, for example, that the decline in the Third World ‘s percentage share of trade, excluding oil, is due not to discrimination or to concentration on declining lines but largely to the fact that Western countries have been trading more freely. Quite frankly, the facts do not back that up. The effective rate of protection on all manufactured imports into developed countries was 19.2 per cent in 1968. On manufactured goods from developing countries the rate was 33.4 per cent. Even in 1972, after the Kennedy Round of talks, even though the percentages have dropped the barriers are still there. There are no free liberal market forces for these countries to get access, particularly to western Europe.

In the report the tariff position is more complex than suggested, as is that for non-tariff barrier protection. The report also underestimates the effect of agricultural protection on the developing countries. In explaining the relative decline in Third World agricultural exports, restrictive trade practices of the West again get no mention. Yet in 1958 the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade report by four eminent economists indicated that the trading rules then applying to developing countries showed a lack of balance unfavourable to their interest. That has continued right through to this day. The report simply exaggerates the competitive nature of international markets. One can use that with respect to commodities where the rules of those games are well understood. There are many commodities in this world where the Third World countries just cannot get a look in. We have had world food conferences; we have various commodity agreements, and the last people to be considered often are the Third World countries. They simply cannot get into a position to deal themselves in.

The report puts a proper emphasis on the Asian region but curiously it seems to have also this political strand running right through it. The honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) referred to it. Some of these sorts of statements are subject to a great amount of debate. The report exhibits a sort of pro- West or anti-Soviet or anticommunist strategic fixation. For instance, there is an unreasonable belief in the naturalness of the report of western international economic arrangements by contrast with those entered into by Third World countries among themselves. The report is uncritically devoted to regimes able to deliver stability in preference to communist or radical regimes especially in South East Asia. Again one can say about the stability of some of the regimes in the Third World that they may not be communist, they may not be radical, but they have a more depressing effect on the chances of the poorer people in those countries to get ahead and to have those countries set on a development path.

The report distinguishes too much and in a peculiar fashion between moderate and radical elements in Third World countries. My time is running out but I would like to conclude with one part of the report where it refers to the proportion of development assistance going to Papua New Guinea. What it states is very contentious indeed. Quite apart from the political implications of such a move it would involve a radical shift in the pattern of distributing Australian development assistance. The Committee said:

The unique position in our programme of Papua New Guinea, which at present still absorbs more than half our aid, is clearly a distorting element in its geographical balance.

While Australia’s responsibilities for PNG mean that it should continue to have first claim on our aid resources, at least until it becomes considerably more self-reliant than it is at present, its dependence on Australian aid should continue to be reduced as quickly as possible.

We seriously need to debate that sort of finding. When that country attained independence in 1975 about 50 per cent of that country’s Budget came from Australia by way of the aid allocation. In 1 980 it is down to 33 per cent of the Budget.

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

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

-The House is debating a statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) on Austrafia ‘s relations with the Third World and the report on which that statement was based, namely, the report known as the Harries report on Australia’s relations with the Third World. I want to deal with just two aspects of the report which I think are particularly important. I will not try to examine the whole report in detail and the assumptions underlying the report. I want to deal with the matter of aid and also the matter of refugees. I draw particular attention to what the report had to say about the type of overseas development aid which Australia should extend to countries in particular in our region. Let me quote from the recommendations contained in the report on page 1 89 relating to aid. One of the recommendations states as follows:

As far as possible, Australia’s aid should be project-type aid. Such aid should emphasise assistance for improving labour productivity and skills, the provision of education and training in Australia, and improved facilities for education and health in developing countries.

Later on, in another recommendation, the committee says in part:

  1. . Australia should give progressively less emphasis in its overall program to aid for general budget support and more to project-type aid.

We have to come to the conclusion that in many countries cash aid is not what is wanted now and in future years. Of course, Papua New Guinea is the country which has received the largest block amount of general budgetary aid. That situation probably will have to continue for some time. But with respect to a number of other countries in our region to which Australia has extended aid, general budgetary cash aid is likely to be required less and less. Let me point to the Malaysian situation as an example. Malaysia has an increasingly favourable balance of payments. One of the results of the rise in oil prices has been that some of the commodities which Malaysia produces, such as natural rubber and palm oil, have come into their own once again.

The economic value of natural rubber and palm oil has increased as a result of the higher oil prices and the reconsideration which must be given to the use of petroleum products. In that respect Malaysia has had an improved balance of payments situation, and, therefore, in terms of the availability of cash to buy equipment from overseas, in terms of the availability of cash to simply buy things and to pay for programs, Malaysia is better off than it was some years ago. What Malaysia needs is training and developmental assistance to raise the level of expertise and the level of competence of human resources within Malaysia. It is in that area that we have to pay greater attention to finding ways in which we can extend effective aid to countries such as Malaysia.

I came across a very good example of the sort of aid that we ought to be extending to countries in our region when I visited in Thailand recently the Thai-Australian highland agricultural project based at the Northern Thai city of Chiang Mai. That project is designed to raise the level of competence of the farmers in the region and in particular the farmers of the highland tribes- the hill people- who face very difficult agricultural conditions in their very high altitude areas. Because they have difficulty in growing enough rice in their traditional tribal areas, they resort to growing and selling opium poppies in order to buy more rice. The hill tribes themselves are not addicted to opium. They simply grow opium poppies as a cash crop in order to supplement their rice production.

The Thai-Australian highland agricultural project under the leadership of Peter Hoare, a Victorian farmer, has been doing extremely good work in assisting hill tribes to raise their production of rice, to develop strains of rice which are more productive at the higher altitudes in which they have to operate, and to experiment with other types of crops such as coffee, tea, garlic and a range of vegetables which they might produce in their very small plots. Mr Peter Hoare and I paid a very interesting visit to the hill tribes during which we came across an opium poppy plantation. I went into the plantation just to see what the opium poppies were like.

I was struck by the incongruity of the situation. Although I was able to pick up the poppies in that area in northern Thailand, had I been caught with those poppies in Bangkok I undoubtedly would have been thrown into a rather uncomfortable Thai gaol. But such action is tolerated in this part of Thailand because opium poppies provide the local hill tribes with some cash income which they need to supplement their poor rice production. So that seemed to me to be both economically and socially a very useful sort of project for Australia to be involved in. I was very impressed with the calibre of the work being done by Mr Peter Hoare and his officers in cooperation with local Thai officials who they were training in the work. This is the sort of aid that we ought to be looking at increasingly in South East Asia in particular. We should be looking at project aid which raises the level of competence of people in those countries rather than at cash aid which may produce problems where people do not have the level of competence or the sophistication to handle the amount of money and the economic development that would result.

One point that Mr Peter Hoare made to me, which I think we ought to note, was that in the work he does he tries to achieve an increase in the level of competence of all the farmers in the region at the same time. He prefers an approach which allows all of them to gain some advantage from the program rather than to concentrate the effort on people who might be initially more competent and who might be able to benefit more from the program but who, after benefiting from the program, would then be in a position to buy out their neighbours and to advance far beyond them. That sort of result in an aid program would create greater social problems than if there had been no aid program in the first place. So it is important in administering aid in cooperation with local officials and with local people that we try to ensure that the benefits of the aid programs are spread as effectively as possible through the population to which it is directed and that the aid program does not become effectively the plaything of a few people in the area who are in the best position to take advantage of it at the relative cost of their colleagues in the same area.

I also want to touch on the problem of refugees. The following recommendation is made at page 1 85 of the Harries Committee report:

Within the limits imposed by our total migrant intake, Australia should continue to give high priority to accepting refugees from Indo-China. While doing so, we should make it clear to neighbouring governments that there are firm upper limits on the total numbers we can be expected to absorb. We should also continue to stimulate international efforts to solve the problem.

I think that that recommendation ought to be endorsed. However, it ought to be extended a little further. We ought to ensure that Australia has a long term presence on the ground in countries such as Malaysia, Thailand and other countries affected by a refugee influx. The presence ought to be obvious to those countries to reassure them that we are there with them seeking to solve problems. The United States of America and Australia are the only two countries to my knowledge which have permanent immigration selection officers and refugee assistance personnel on the ground giving some long term assistance. Other countries which accept a quota of refugees basically do so in one of two ways. They send in selection teams from time to time to take several hundred at a time out of the camps and they do not have a continuing presence. Alternatively, they ask other agencies such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees or other bodies involved in assistance to refugees, to do the selection for them of a certain quota of refugees.

What is being noted by countries such as Malaysia and Thailand where I had some discussion on refugee matters is that the European countries in particular that had undertaken to accept a certain number of refugees are coming to the end of their refugee programs. European countries by and large gave a once and for all commitment to take 400 refugees, 1,000 refugees or whatever it might have been. Having come to the end of that program, they are not giving an on-going commitment. I am not trying to suggest that the commitments that have been given by a number of European countries are not useful because many of those commitments have in fact concentrated on the really humanitarian cases, the difficult cases that countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia have not been very willing to take. Switzerland, for example, in respect of her small quota said: Give us some of your more difficult cases; give us the handicapped and the old people whom no one else will accept’. That was an enormously generous gesture which was of great assistance to countries of first refuge. They were reassured that they would not be left with all the people who no one else would select.

Nonetheless, as I have said, the European countries are by and large coming to the end of their resettlement programs. Therefore, countries in our region which are first countries of refuge for refugees are looking more and more to Australia to continue to accept a significant number of refugees. I found that it was very important for us to have people on the ground on a continuing basis. The Australian senior migration officer in Malaysia and I made several calls on local Malaysian government officials and aid people who are concerned with the refugee problem. It was very clear from the visits that I made that the Australian officer from time to time made calls on such people to explain to them what Australia was doing and to tell them what sort of program of resettlement was to be undertaken within the next few months. He reassured them that Australia would be there for a long time to assist them in the final resolution of the problem.

So I do believe that the Australian Government ought to extend to countries such as Malaysia and Thailand the reassuring commitment that we will be with them until the problem has been solved; that we will not walk out, leaving them with a very large residual number of people whom they find difficult to accommodate. In that respect 1 believe that we should not overlook the very difficult social problems which arise in countries in our region as a result of the presence of large numbers of refugees. The countries of first refuge have themselves large villagetype, unsophisticated populations. In particular, the east coast of Malaya, the Malayan peninsula, is an area where many refugees have landed after crossing the South China Sea. Large numbers of villages of very traditional Malayans have resented very strongly the arrival on their beaches of large numbers of refugees from Vietnam. Incidents have even occurred on the beaches in which refugees have been beaten by the local population or pushed back out to sea. We have to understand that situation and appreciate the very difficult local problems that arise for local administrators because of the presence in their relatively unsophisticated communities of a large number of refugees.

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

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– It is now six months since the introduction of the Report of the Committee on Australia ‘s Relations with the Third World, or the Harries report. I think that it offers us an opportunity, particularly late of an evening at the end of the sitting week, to reflect philosophically on that report. I am somewhat disappointed to date with the rather superficial comments of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) on this important document. I share with most commentators an admiration for its quality, lucidity and comprehensiveness. It seems to me to be an intelligent assessment of a significant segment of the international community. But politics are, above all, about the conflict of values. What we need to examine, in even the most lucid and intelligent of reports, are the values that underlie it. It seems to me, at least on reflection, that our first task is to try to determine what value position the report occupies. When one undertakes that examination the Harries report is shown to be an intelligent but profoundly conservative document. It is above all, an enlightened defence of the prevailing international system.

This conservative bias which underlies the report is most obvious in two respects. First of all, the report has a basic commitment to preserving the existing international economic order, the maintenance ofthe existing distribution of economic power within the international community.

Secondly, running through the report is an underwriting of Australia’s role in the Cold War, the key international conflict since the Second World War. In these two respects, which are quite fundamental to the report, it seems to me that the report occupies a value position that is quite clearly on the conservative side of the spectrum. In some ways this is a rather paradoxical position for a person to hold because, if one looks at the Press reception of the Harries report, one gets the impression that it is an extremely radical document. For instance, the Daily Telegraph, in its first comment on the report said:

It will send shock waves through the board rooms of Australia.

That might not be saying very much, given those board rooms. I suspect that in many of them anything to the left of Genghis Khan would send shocks through the room. The Daily Telegraph went on to say of the Harries report: . . it recommends a complete revolution in our traditional thinking not merely on trade, but on Australia’s place in the world … It has made recommendations which are, perhaps deliberately provocative, recommendations that are much too radical to be quickly absorbed.

Perhaps one would not regard the Daily Telegraph as the kind of paper that would be able to identify radicalism of any kind, but the National Times, for instance, about the matter, stated: bound to upset the conservative Right . . . close reading of it will quickly reveal to all right thinking Australians just how far the rot has gone.

Why is there this paradox? Why is the report basically conservative yet seen to be rather radical? One reason is simply the nature of the report. One can take quotes out of context to support practically any position. One can find quotes which would support a conservative position, a liberal position or a social democratic position. One commentator has tried to explain this by saying that there is a conservative Harries input but there is also a conservative liberal input and that even a bit of social democracy has crept in; that the committee nature of the report helps to explain how it has been used by many people in very different ways.

Mr Falconer:

– What did Peter Nolan put into it?

Dr BLEWETT:

– The honourable member for Casey notes the contribution of the social democratic element in the person of Mr Nolan. Another reason for the paradox is that only a minimal historical contrast is provided. One of the great gaps in the report is that there is no really concentrated section which tells us about Australia and the Third World pre-Harries There is simply a listing of a number of contacts that we have had with the Third World. Some of them, such as the confrontation with Indonesia, and Suez, which are listed, are perhaps matters which the writers of the report did not want to expatiate. Again Vietnam, for instance, which surely represented a contact between Australia and the Third World, is not mentioned in that list of historical experiences. That is another reason why the report is sometimes seen as being more radical. It lacks an historical chapter on Australia’s relations with the Third World, one that would put the present situation in a clearer context.

A third reason for the paradox is the superficiality of much Press reporting in this country of any serious document. Members of the Press tend to pick out the titillating bits. The two that they thought were the most interesting were the attitude to southern Africa and the tariff issue. Those seemed to be the two most sensational things that they could find in that long document. The Press thought and wrote that the attitude on South Africa was radical because it certainly did suggest an accommodation with the blacks. Also, the tariff proposals suggested that alterations should be made to the tariff system in this country. But I think that if one looks at both one will see that essentially they are intelligent, conservative responses to the problems of southern Africa and of international trade. An accommodation with black Africa is urged by many conservative forces throughout the world in order to maintain southern Africa as a bastion for European capitalism. That is the best way of maintaining the white position, economically, in southern Africa. Similarly on tariffs- however radical we may find it in Australia- the dominant forces in the international economy are pushing to maintain a free trade system which allows the penetration of the Third World and of Australia by international economic organisations. So that what appear to be radical positions are found, when examined, to be basically conservative.

The reason that the report is essentially conservative relates, as I have said, to its support for the position of Australia in the Cold War and its attitude to the new international economic order. It is essentially conservative in that it has a commitment to an adverse relationship with the Soviet Union and, to a lesser extent, with communism. For instance, throughout the report there is support for Western and Third World resistance to that power which is seen as the great threat to the existing status quo. Also the Harries report basically occupies a minimalist position on the changes posited by the new international economic order. On those two points undoubtedly a ceaseless anti-Russian tattoo runs through the report. Russia is seen as a threat, as disruptive, and Russian ambitions are talked about. The report says at one stage that we have to teach countries the disadvantages of being Russian clients. This tattoo is, in part, an anticommunist tattoo. The report says, for instance, that we must work to prevent a communist takeover of any further states in this Asian region. It is of course a bit schizophrenic on the point. That poses a bit of a problem, because what do we do with China, the second of the great communist States? In the report China gets a spank for encouraging insurgency outside her borders, but other than that there are very few reprimands. The other great communist power comes off fairly well in the report. Of course, there is a bit of schizophrenia, as there is in the Liberal Party, and even more in the National Country Party, about the attitude to the two great communist powers.

Debate interrupted.

page 1664

ADJOURNMENT

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Fife:

– I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1664

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA’S RELATIONS WITH THE THIRD WORLD

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed.

Dr BLEWETT:

-It is this attitude to the communist powers that explains one of the major gaps in the report. That is, the report contains no structured suggestions on how Australia should develop its relations with Indo-China. If we look at the report as a guide to Australian foreign policy, one of its great gaps is this failure to talk about structured relations with Indo-China. It is a key and immediate problem for Australia, one of the basic problems of our foreign policy, yet the report on the Third World offers us no clear solutions, no structure on how we approach them. How do we develop relations with both ASEAN and Indo-China? The report gives us no clear ideas of how to solve that dilemma.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1664

ADJOURNMENT

Death of Mr Frank Courtnay- Aboriginal Land Rights-Rail Services-NUMAS Scheme: Population Policy- Vietnam-Australian National Library-Exchange Student: Family Allowance

Motion ( by Mr Fife) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-I want to raise two points. One relates to the death of a former member of this House, Mr Frank Courtnay, which was recorded this morning in the simplest and, I think, most ungracious way in which it is possible to note such an event in this Parliament. I wish that we could adopt the practice we used to follow of at least paying some respect to the memory of a former colleague in placing on record something of his life and work. It is an important historical record, and I remind honourable members that there is very little of it about many former members of this House. Mr Courtnay was the member for Darebin. He was an electoral neighbour of mine and I knew him for many years. He was a prominent member of the trade union movement. He had a long, effective and distinguished career in that medium, and as a member of this House he played an effective part in representing the Parliament overseas. I would like to place on record my regret at his passing and my sympathy with his family. I express the opinion that it is time we gave more consideration to events such as this.

The other point I want to talk about relates to something which ought not to be occurring at this time. In Western Australia today there were demonstrations in Perth and in the north-west against mining on the land of the Noonkanbah Aboriginal people. I am astonished that so long after we thought that the battle for land rights for the Aboriginal people had been won we still have to face the assaults of greedy and grasping mining companies and even greedier and more grasping State governments. I am astonished that we permit it to happen. I am surprised that the Government here, which is charged with the responsibility of caring for the Aboriginal people, allows it to happen. Almost 200 years after the settlement of this country, when the Aboriginal people have suffered grievously at our hands, although I know that a great deal of devoted effort has been put into trying to ameliorate their lot, there is still no resting place for the Aboriginal people of Australia.

Consider the problem at this moment across the northern part of Australia, which is associated mostly with minerals. I have heard a lot of people ask: ‘Why should the Aboriginal people have land rights of a different order from those of the rest of us?’ I ask: ‘Why should miners have special rights in this country or anywhere else?’ Of course, there is a difference between Aboriginals and miners. The Aboriginal people were here first and they regard the land as a sacred trust and a part of their whole life. The miners, of course, are some of the vandals of history. At the present moment a struggle is going on in the Noonkanbah area. I am not too sure whether today there were threats of violence or just the look of violence, but certainly the Aboriginal people stood up for their rights, and they have not been able to do that too often in the past 200 years.

A little further north a struggle is going on for the Oombulgarri people to protect their interests against the people who will be mining for diamonds. In Arnhem Land there is a constant threat in the mining of bauxite at Yirrkala, where the battle was first joined in 1963. The miners are at work, and uranium contracts are being signed overseas for the products of Arnhem Land. I understand that they are not even legal. At Cape York, where the Aboriginal people are settled in a number of areas, they are still being pursued and harassed and harried principally at the behest of the State Government and the mining companies. This Government ought to step in and buy the land and deed it to them in perpetuity. In the Torres Strait the people have no land, they just have the sea. The sea is their land. I hope that honourable members will remember that when the time comes and the debate is joined in this House on the question of the border agreement with Papua New Guinea.

Surely, at this stage we can start to give the Aboriginal people an absolute guarantee that where they are shall be their refuge and that we will make it their environment until such time as we understand and they understand that they can live comfortably and peacefully in this country. If they want to join in the mineral development, it will be dme when they are socially ready. Simply because miners want it does not mean that it is time.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I wish tonight to bring to the notice of the House and the people of New South Wales the great problems that exist in the north-western area of the State in regard to rail transport. The far north-western town of Walgett is not served now by goods train or passenger train. It is the centre of a huge pastoral and agricultural area, and the people of that town and the surrounding district are most upset at what has taken place under the State Government of New South Wales and its Transport Commission. Goods going to Walgett are now sent to Coonamble, a town which is many miles away, and then by road transport to Walgett. A meeting was held in Walgett a few weeks ago, one of the biggest meetings ever held in the history of that town. The Premier of New South Wales and his Minister for Transport were invited, but as it was not in the Castlereagh byelection area, neither of those gentlemen attended. This indicates the lack of interest of the State Government of New South Wales in our great north-western country areas.

Travelling east on the north-west line, the same Government and the same Transport Commission have closed the station of Burren Junction, which also served a very big pastoral area. They have allowed the railway line from Burren Junction to Merrywinebone to deteriorate to such an extent that the trains taking wheat out of the Merrywinebone silo can travel at only five miles an hour to Burren Junction and can take out only 500 tonnes of wheat at a time. The railway line beyond Merrywinebone to Pokataroo is now in such a poor state that no train can possibly traverse this area. Anybody who grows wool in this area has to send the wool 70 miles by road transport to Moree in order to transport it to the markets in Newcastle or Sydney.

Mr Fife:

– Unreasonable.

Mr O’KEEFE:

– What is happening in that area is unreasonable, and it is a tragedy. It is an area which produces great quantities of wheat and wool, and it carries a lot of very heavy traffic. Yet the New South Wales State Government has deserted the people in that area. Surely we as a Government should communicate through our Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) with the Government of New South Wales and its Minister for Transport to see whether the conditions can be improved and the people in these areas given a service. Over the years I have travelled extensively in these areas and know the great primary production that takes place there. Apparently the New South Wales Government could not care less about the people living in these farflung country areas. As I said earlier, if there had been a by-election in that area Mr Wran and his Ministers would have been there every day promising a rail service and promising this, that and every other thing. I hope these facts are brought to the attention of my colleague the Minister for Transport in whose electorate of Gwydir this deterioration has taken place. I will see to it that he is informed of the drastic situation which the New South Wales Government and its Department of Motor Transport have allowed to take place in this wonderful area.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In the short time I have available I wish to make some comments on the effects of the Numerical Multifactor Assessment System. The rigidity of the NUMAS selection scheme is not only fairly ridiculous but also vastly unfair. It was intended to eliminate discrimination and to ensure that the best people were selected for migration to Australia. The Government’s means of obtaining the best people is apparently the Numerical Multifactor Assessment System. Even the name is absurd, and the points which it awards in no way take into account the human aspect which, according to a points system, is so uncertain. This is why NUMAS is a failure. It fails because it judges people solely on their present ability while disregarding their potential and their capabilities. It considers applicants for immigration on a competitive basis. If they pass certain tests they can be assured of the patronage of the current Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee).

The tests themselves are inequitable. They do not assess people on need. They do not assess people on the possibility of their contributions to the way of life and the quality of life in Australia. Rather they assess people on what they have already achieved in their own countries. If they can hold down a job, if they have a desired skill and if they can speak English, they are acceptable. The ability to speak English is not necessarily a prerequisite for a good immigrant. Many of the success stories of immigrants are those of people who came to this country without a word of English but who by their sheer determination, strength of will, initiative and desire for a better life carved out a wonderful and worthwhile future for themselves in this country. These good, hard-working citizens come to me personally because the harshness of NUMAS and the rigours of the family reunion provisions prohibit them from having other members of their families join them in their adopted country.

Who are the people the Government wants in this country? The people it wants are apparently those who provide quick, easy and short term answers to the problems which currently face us in the labour market. In other words, we want those tradesmen whom we are not prepared to train ourselves. If we seek verification of this we should turn our minds back to the support given by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to government and employer deputations going overseas to recruit skilled tradesmen to fill the needs of industry- needs which should have been recognised four-and-a-half years ago when plans and policies could have been implemented which could now be fulfilling those needs. But no, that is not cheap enough or easy enough for this Government. This Government would rather rip off the fruits of other countries’ training programs. It would rather not bear the cost burden of training our own apprentices. It would rather give employment to overseas personnel.

What does this Government say about unemployment? It says: ‘So what? It does not affect our electorates. We are not losing any votes. So what about unemployment?’ What do I tell people who ask me why a Minister of this Government is recruiting tradesmen from overseas when their own sons and daughters cannot get apprenticeships or even find jobs? What do I tell them when they ask why their families cannot come out here to share the benefits of their new life while other people who pass the Numerical Multifactor Assessment System test can come here? Do honourable members think that these people understand what a Numerical Multi-factor Assessment System test is? I doubt very much whether honourable members opposite understand what it is. I believe it is time we implemented a comprehensive Australian population policy which, instead of just looking at the needs of Australian employers, is able to reflect on the needs of Australians and on the quality of life of Australian citizens, including the quality of life of Australian citizens from other ethnicbackgrounds.

The competitive situation which now exists is not conducive to improving the quality of life of Australians as a whole. It may be conducive to fulfilling the immediate needs of Australian employers but strictly speaking it accepts people on very inhumane and indeed unequal grounds. I say ‘unequal’ because it tests people only on the opportunities they have had in their own countries and on whether they have had the opportunity to learn a trade or to learn to speak English. I believe that this is a very unfair qualification. How many of us in this House can speak another language? How can we expect those from other countries, apart from those of Anglo-Saxon origin, to speak English before they have even set foot on these shores? Therefore, we are demanding from intending migrants qualities which we do not possess ourselves. This is grossly unfair. Surely in the democracy that is Australia it is wrong to accept a person simply because of what he does. How many of us in this House are practising our professions? We are here -

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

Mr YATES:
Holt

-The honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) is probably the most experienced man in foreign affairs on the opposition benches. His questioning, quite rightly, of our relations with Vietnam was probably the best observation from the Opposition benches that I have heard for some dme. I indicated to him that I would be talking for a few moments about my visit to Vietnam last year as a guest of the Vietnamese Government. In trying to come to some view on what our foreign policy should be I had discussions with the Swedish Ambassador in Vietnam, the Australian Ambassador and others who are really anxious to assist Vietnam. It would be wrong if I did not use this opportunity to say to Mr Giam, who was the chief negotiator between the Vietnamese Government and the Chinese Government, that I was very glad to be his guest and to listen to what he had to say before I visited China to discuss his views with the director of international affairs of the Government of China.

I must say straightaway that any country which, in discussing its policy towards the Association of South East Asian Nations, dismisses Vietnam, which has the biggest and most powerful army in that area, by saying that it does not exist simply does not know the basis of foreign affairs. It is regrettable that we have withdrawn from Vietnam our own agricultural experts who were assisting the Vietnamese Government. I think that was a mistake. Our experts were helping the Vietnamese Government both at Loc Chau and on the border with Laos. I would have thought that whatever views we have about a foreign government we would never withdraw from that government those who were trying to assist the people in the basic problems of agriculture, water, engineering, or whatever. I must say that as a result of my visit to Vietnam I was disappointed that our great Government in Australia had decided that it was unwise to leave our representatives in that country. That is a point of view. What are we trying to achieve in Vietnam? Are we trying to force the Vietnamese to rely more and more on the Soviet Union for help?

Mr James:

– Yes, that is what you are doing.

Mr YATES:

– Sometimes I must admire the honourable member for Hunter. He shows wisdom because he understands some things. He is quite correct. What is the point of not trying to assist a people who have been at war for 40 years and who now have only one way out- to look to the rest of the free world for advice and help? I would have thought that we ought to be very careful not to take away from Vietnam any source of help that we could give that country. Just because a country calls itself communist it is ridiculous simply to dismiss it as lost to the rest of the free world. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of foreign policy and foreign governments.

Mr James:

– The United States did it in Cuba.

Mr YATES:

– Just hold your tongue a moment, my dear friend. We have had talks before. It would be the same as anybody saying years ago that we would dismiss Yugoslavia. It is important never to lose contact with people. You may not admire the Government, you may not like the Ministers, you may hate those who control the country, but the last thing Australia must ever do is betray her friendship for the people of the countries in South East Asia. That is a fundamental lesson. 1 am glad that the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) brought the matter up tonight. We should do all we can to assist the people of Vietnam, and the sooner the better.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-This evening I would like to bring to the attention of the House the plight of oral history facilities at the Austalian National Library. Oral history, as a number of honourable members may not be aware, is a new method of historical research which has been developed in Britain and the Continent over the last 10 years.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Nothing to do with oral sex?

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable member would be the one who would be interested in that sphere. He might like to speak on that matter later this evening in this adjournment debate, but I am interested in oral history. Oral history has many enthusiastic practitioners in Australia. It has been brought to my attention by Mr Richard Lucas who is one of my constituents that the Oral History Association of New South Wales will be holding a seminar and conference at Macquarie University next weekend. What is really disturbing the Oral History Association of New South Wales is the lack of facilities available at the National Library for the storage of tapes and the lack of staff to assist in the cataloguing of those tapes.

A number of honourable members may think that this is not a very important matter, but I have had the importance of it brought home to me in the last 12 months with the death of a number of people in the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. I refer to people like the late Bill Colbourne, who would have held most of the history of the New South Wales Labor Party in his head. He was a man who, in his time, did not write many letters but used the telephone as an extremely useful political instrument. It would seem to me that the Government and the

National Library should be giving more facilities and more assistance to the people who will be able to recover this information from people who hold a lot of the history of our country.

As honourable memberrs will be aware, oral history seeks to find out the experiences of the small people in a lot of instances and what effects life has had on them over the years in Australia, rather than reading the debates of parliaments or the written words of people who would form the elite of our country. I think the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott), who I think has the control of the National Library and the facilities there, should look at the staffing arrangements and the tape storage facilities at the National Library to see whether he can assist the people engaged in what is to my mind a very worthy method of research. It is only by recording the experiences of the small people that we can get an idea of the feelings and the fabric of our country over a period.

I commend to the House a little more interest in this facet of historical research and I commend to the Minister that he assist this organisation in the very worthwhile job it is doing to put together some of the history of Australia which the more ordinary practitioners of historical research seem to miss.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-On Monday night, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) raised a matter of great concern to him. I did ask that he be notified that I was going to raise something tonight that might be of interest to him, and I know that he appreciates that. He raised the matter of a Rotary exchange student -

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You will appreciate also that he should have time to reply.

Mr BOURCHIER:

-A11 right, I will try to give that time to him, if honourable members opposite will give me a go. I was interested to hear about this exchange student. Apparently this mean Government’ had chopped off the family allowance of this student’s parent who had battled so hard. So I thought I would do a little checking in my own area because there are Rotary exchange students there. I also checked with one or two other areas and I found out that if people go through the proper processes and there is a proper case for it, in fact the family allowance provided by this ‘mean Government’ is not necessarily chopped off. Being a member who tries to look after his constituents, I usually make representations to Ministers when I have a problem like this. I thought I would help the lady out in this area because the honourable member for Parramatta was obviously being neglectful. So I raised the matter with the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) and I received the following comment from her:

On 3 1 March 1 980 a query was raised in the adjournment debate on the eligibility of Mrs S. Hayward of 1 1 Bombala Street, Pendle Hill for family allowance for her daughter, Fiona, who was a Rotary exchange student in India. I have had inquiries made through my Department’s Sydney office and am now able to offer an explanation.

The Social Services Act provides that family allowance for a student child is payable if the child is wholly or substantially dependent on the claimant. Where a child is not living with the claimant, inquiries are made to verify the dependency. I am informed that Mrs Hayward was receiving family allowance for Fiona as a student child until 14 December 1979. On 18 December 1979, Mrs Hayward herself advised the Department that Fiona would be going to India as a Rotary exchange student in 1980.

This suggests that Mrs Hayward was aware that she would not normally be eligible for the allowance-

As it was not clear that Fiona would meet the criteria of dependency for student family allowance, payment was suspended pending -

And I ask honourable members to note that- clarification of this point. This matter has now been clarified and you will be pleased to learn that family allowance payments for Fiona have been restored by the Department in Sydney and they have arranged for a cheque for $ 104 to be sent to Mrs Hayward which is payment back to 15 December.

I am sure that the honourable member for Parramatta is most delighted that we were able to fix the matter up for him and to carry it out in the proper way. I hope he has the decency to get up and acknowledge that we are not a mean government and that we do carry on with the normal processes of government. Before I sit down, I ask honourable members opposite to just bear with me. I would like to give the honourable member for Parramatta a minute to stand up and apologise and withdraw. But before I do so, I would like to ask you one question, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you advise me whether the research officer of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) has taken out a licence for drilling or gold digging?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was very interested to hear the response from the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier).

Mr Dean:

– Well, say thank you.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I will not say thank you at all. I will repeat what I said before and I will repeat it ad nauseum. You are a miserable, mean, petty-minded Government because you took the family allowance away from this girl. Her mother spoke to me yesterday and said that after my speech in this House on Monday night an officer of the Department of Social Security visited her again on the Tuesday. So that had nothing whatever to do with the representations made by the honourable member for Bendigo to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle). It was merely a reaction to the fact that I had brought up this subject in this House and pointed out to the public how meanspirited this Government is. Here is a young girl from a battling family, with battling parents, who by virtue of her own ability has been able to win a Rotary scholarship to India where she is raising the standard of the quality of Australian school children in the eyes ofthe Indian people. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that her parents have been visited not on one occasion but on three occasions by officers of the Department of Social Security who have investigated the matter. The parents have put all the facts before them- the fact that they battled to pay $1,600 to pay this girl’s fare to India, the fact that they were providing her with a school allowance and the fact that they had to pay for a school uniform for her in India.

Mr Carlton:

– Why didn’t you write to the Minister?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I found out about the matter only last Friday; that is why I did not write to the Minister. It appears to me that Government members have much greater access to the Minister in this area than Opposition members. I have written to the Minister on many occasions on many subjects and I have not had the prompt reply that the honourable member for Bendigo has had. I tell you this, Mr Deputy Speaker: The only reason this lady has been given a retrospective cheque is that I brought the matter up in the House, and because the honourable member for Bendigo, like some of his fellow members over there, may have been embarrassed to be sitting behind a petty, meanspirited, miserable Government. It has taken the Department of Social Security five months to make this payment and it has been made only because I raised the matter in this House. If I had not raised the matter, that lady would never have got the money. That battling family would still be scratching and scraping to keep this kid in India. There will be no apology from me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Does the Minister seek to extend the debate?

Mr Macphee:

– Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m.

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Balaclava · LP

– This evening the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon) made some comments which were critical of the Numerical Multifactor Assessment System under which migrants are evaluated according to a variety of criteria. I want to make it clear to the House that I value the contributions of any honourable member on this subject. When the system was introduced by my predecessor, the present Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar), it was made clear that NUMAS would be evaluated after its first 12 months of operation and its effectiveness would be monitored and considered. If any honourable member wishes to make a constructive contribution to the way in which it could be improved, I would be very pleased to hear it. The contribution of the honourable member tonight, however, was a very general and negative one. I believe that he should have been advised to go back and study the speeches of my precedessor when introducing the program. He would have found many of the answers to his criticisms.

In the few minutes available to me, let me stress that we are looking to the contribution which people can make to Australia’s social, cultural and economic development. We are not merely looking at the achievements in their past lives. It is true that the ability to speak English is a factor which is taken into consideration. The honourable member spent a lot of time talking about English. English is a factor in people’s capacity to adapt to life in Australia, but it is not the only factor. Employment prospects are another factor and again we give a great deal of attention to these. The purpose of NUMAS was to eliminate the discretion which the honourable member complained about. It is a rational system. It is not one which is infallible. It is one which still has some discretion, but it does help to minimise the discretion. It- is fair and is easily understood by those why try to understand it. Details of the system are freely available in a small published pamphlet.

As I have said, the Government always foresaw that the systems would be capable of modification and improvement and that some of the modification would be according to the changing fortunes of our economy and social development. We are giving a great deal of attention to NUMAS as a rational means of helping Australia to increase its population by migration, to help people to adapt to our evolving culture and to make a contribution to our economic development. In that sense we certainly have to consider employment prospects.

That is the reason we have concentrated, in the case of independent migration, on people having jobs. It is a non-discriminatory policy, but it is concerned with the level of skill and shortages of skill. We cannot make up all of the skills by training and retraining programs. There are long lead times involved and many of our resource projects would not get off the ground without immediate independent migration of highly skilled people.

It is beyond doubt that bringing in highly skilled people creates employment for semi and unskilled people. Many of those semi and unskilled people are here. Many others would come to Australia under extended family reunion arrangements. It is starting at the wrong end of the issue to look at family reunion of primarily unskilled people first and then try to look at the creation of jobs second. My five minutes have expired, but I want to say that in reconciling those two points- the problem of job creation and the problem of family reunion- we want NUMAS to be rational, fair and understood by all. We believe that it can be. It is not infallible, but if individuals wish to contribute to its improvement I would be pleased to hear their constructive comments.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, 1 5 April next, at 2.15 p.m., unless an alternative day or hour of meeting be notified by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House.

page 1670

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Thomson to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the preservation, conservation and protection of whales and other cetacea.

Mr Thomson to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fisheries Act 1952.

Mr Thomson to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968.

House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.

page 1671

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Parliamentary Question No. 3260 (Question No. 4253)

Mr Dawkins:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

When may I expect an answer to Question No. 3260 which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 27 February 1979.

Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

I refer the honourable member to House of Representatives Hansard of 26 February 1 980, page 393.

Methapyrilene (Question No. 4547)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 29 August 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports that tests carried out by the United States National Cancer Institute have led to the withdrawal of products containing methapyrilene from the United States market.
  2. Is the National Health and Medical Research Council currently carrying out tests on this drug.
  3. Has the Government ordered the withdrawal of products containing this drug from the Australian market until the results of the tests are known.
Mr Mackellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. An expert committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council considered toxicological data on this drug and on the basis of their advice, the Council is expected to make appropriate recommendations.
  3. Yes, the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (ADEC) has had an evaluation of the toxicological studies carried out on this substance. These studies show that a significant number of animals treated with methapyrilene continuously at 20-30 times the dose appropriate to man, had developed liver tumours and had died within IS months. A recommendation from the ADEC that all pharmaceutical products containing methapyrilene should be removed from the market was accepted. The standard drug recall procedures were put into effect by my Department in conjunction with the States to withdraw all stocks from sale. Methapyrilene was classified as a designated substance under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations to restrict importation, and appropriate action was taken by the States to amend the legislation thereby restricting methapyrilene either absolutely or for research purposes only. In the ACT all products containing methapyrilene were already classified as ‘prescription only’ products. Following notification of the drug recall, all stocks were withdrawn. I have arranged for a copy of the Press statement on this matter issued on 7 September 1979 to be placed in the Parliamentary Library.

Postal and Telecommunications Department and Authorities (Questions Nos 5213 to 5236)

Mr Staley:
LP

-The honourable member for Melbourne has placed on notice a series of questions (Nos 52 13 to 5236) concerning houses owned or leased by my Department and those Statutory Authorities which come within the responsibility of my portfolio. Answers to Questions Nos 52 14, 5219, 5226 and 5232 which relate to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal were provided in House of Representatives Hansard of 2 1 February 1980 at page 305.

The provision of the detailed information sought would require diversion of very significant resources, in some cases the work would involve several man-months of effort. It has been decided, after careful consideration, that this could not be justified in the circumstances.

The following general information, however, is provided and if the honourable member has any specific queries in respect of particular properties I would be pleased to try and provide a response.

Overseas Telecommunications Commission Houses Owned and Leased (Question No. 5213)

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 Overseas Telecommunications Commission.
  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 Commission employee living in it as at 22 November 1 979.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) One hundred and fifty-six houses (excluding the house at Vaucluse covered separately under Question No. 5231- Hansard, 21 February 1980, page 329). (b)One house.
  2. The location of the houses owned and leased is set out in the following table:

Another 10 houses are located at Guam (Mariana Islands) and 3 at Norfolk Island.

  1. Other than two houses at Guam which are vacant, each of the above houses was occupied by OTC staff working at the various locations as at 22 November 1 979. The staff concerned are radio operating staff in the Coast Radio Service or technical staff operating Radio, Satellite or Cable stations.

Australian Postal Commission: House Owned and Leased (Question No. 521S)

Mr Innes:

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 Postal Commission.
  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 Commission employee living in it as at 22 November 1 979.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. (a) Eight hundred and thirty-four houses; (b) 11 houses
  2. ) The location of the houses owned and leased is set out in the following table:
  1. The houses are provided as accommodation for Australia Post staff, principally postmasters. They are mainly located in country areas where it is otherwise difficult for officers to rent suitable accommodation.

The houses are rented to officers for the period of their posting to the various locations, lt is estimated that the average period of tenancy is 5 years.

Australian Telecommunications Commission: Houses Owned and Leased (Question No. 5216)

Mr Innes:

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 Telecommunications Commission.
  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 Commission employee living in it as at 22 November 1979.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. (a) Three hundred and ninety-three houses; (b) 2 houses.
  2. The location ofthe houses owned and leased is set out in the following table:
  1. Staff housing is provided to accommodate Telecom employees under an established criteria whereby accommodation may be provided where necessary for one or more of the following reasons:

To provide for the proper functioning or safeguarding of Telecom installations.

To recruit and retain a suitable person for a key position.

To provide staff accommodation in towns where there is not an acceptable purchase and/or rental market and which are beyond a reasonable travelling distance from a town where there is such a market.

Where provision of accommodation at a particular location can be justified on economic grounds on a continuing basis.

Tenancies are for the period of posting of the particular employee to that area.

Postal and Telecommunications Department: Houses Owned and Leased (Question No. 5217)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many houses are (a) owned and (b) leased by his Department.
  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 employee of his Department living in it as at 22 November 1979.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) 8 1 houses; (b) 1 1 houses
  2. The location of the houses owned and leased is set out in the following table:
  1. Staff housing is provided to accommodate employees who do the work on Postal and Telecommunications Department establishments under established criteria. Accommodation may be provided where necessary for one or more of the following reasons:

To provide for the proper functioning of safeguarding of Broadcasting and Television installations.

To recruit and retain a suitable person for a key position.

To provide staff accommodation in areas where there is not an acceptable purchase and/or rental market.

Where provision of accommodation at a particular location can be justified on economic ground on a continuing basis.

Tenancies are for the period of posting of the particular employee to that area.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Houses Owned and Leased (Question No. 5218)

Mr Innes:

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 Commission.
  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 Commission employee living in it as at 22 November 1 979.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. (a) 41 houses; (b) 8 houses.
  2. The location of the houses owned and leased is set out in the following table:
  1. The above houses, except for a few which were vacant as at 22 November 1979, were occupied by ABC staff working at the various locations. The staff concerned are mainly regional managers, journalists, announcers, technical and other administrative staff.

Overseas Telecommunications Commission: Houses Owned or Rented (Question No. 5220)

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 Overseas Telecommunications Commission for each house owned or rented by the Commission.

What is the rental asked by the Commission for each house it owns or rents which is not currently tenanted.

What was the rental charged or asked by the Commission 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 ) Married staff accompanied by family are charged 10 per cent of salary and allowances in the nature of salary and unaccompanied married and single staff are charged 5 per cent of salary and allowances in the nature ofsalary.
  2. and (3) See answer to ( 1 ) above.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Houses Owned or Rented (Question No. 5221)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the rental charged to each current tenant of the Australian Broadcasting Commission for each house owned or rented by the Commission.
  2. What is the rental asked by the Commission for each house it owns or rents which is not currently tenanted.
  3. What was the rental charged or asked by the Commission for each house it owns or leases as at 30 June (a) 1976, (b)1977,(c)1978and(d) 1979.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. to (3) Rentals are calculated in accordance with the formula of ‘economic rent’ on Australian Government staff houses except:

    1. where the occupant has incidental obligations of supervision or general control, in which case the rental shall not exceed 10 per cent of the salary of the occupant; and
    2. where houses are located in certain district allowance areas, in which case the maximum of 10 per cent of the occupant’s salary may also apply.

Postal and Telecommunications Department: Houses Owned or Rented (Question No. 5222)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the rental charged to each current tenant of his Department for each house owned or rented by his Department.
  2. What is the rental asked by his Department for each house it owns or rents which is not currently tenanted.
  3. What was the rental charged or asked by his Department 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. to (3) Rentals are calculated in accordance with the formula of ‘economic rent’ on Australian Government staff houses except:

    1. where the occupant has incidental obligations of supervision or general control, in which case the rental shall not exceed 10 per cent of the salary of the occupant; and
    2. ii ) where houses are located in certain district allowance areas, in which case the maximum of 10 per cent of the occupant ‘s salary may also apply.

Australian Telecommunications Commission: Houses Owned or Rented (Question No. 5223)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the rental charged to each current tenant of the Australian Telecommunications Commission for each house owned or rented by the Commission.
  2. What is the rental asked by the Commission for each house it owns or rents which is not currently tenanted.
  3. What is the rental charged or asked by the Commission 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. to (3) Rentals are calculated in accordance with the formula of ‘economic rent’ on Australian Government staff houses except:

    1. where the occupant has incidential obligations of supervision or general control, in which case the rental shall not exceed 10 per cent of the salary of the occupant; and
    2. where houses are located in certain district allowance areas, in which case the maximum of 10 per cent of the occupants salary may also apply.

Australian Postal Commission: Houses Owned or Rented (Question No. 5224)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the rental charged to each current tenant of the Australian Postal Commission for each house owned or rented by the Commission.
  2. What is the rental asked by the Commission for each house it owns or rents which is not currently tenanted.
  3. What was the rental charged or asked by the Commission 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 ) to (3) Rental for each house is calculated according to the standard Commonwealth ‘economic rent’ formula. Postal (Staff) By-law, 77, however, provides that, under certain circumstances, rental shall not exceed 10 percent of the salary of the occupant.

Tenants of houses owned and leased by Australia Post pay, on average, $18 rent per week, however, rents cover a broad range and vary significantly. There have been no rental variations since 1976 but a rent revision is currently under consideration.

Overseas Telecommunications Commission: Houses Owned or Leased (Question No. 5225)

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 Overseas Telecommunications Commission.
  2. What is the rental paid by the Commission for each house it leases.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The location of each house is as advised in response to Question No. 5213 (2) above: there are no official State or Territorial valuations of the houses concerned.
  2. Only one house located at Townsville, is leased by the Commission. Weekly rental of $68.00 is paid.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Houses Owned or Leased (Question No. 5227)

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 Commission.
  2. What is the rental paid by the Commission for each house it leases.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The location of each house is as advised in response to Question No. 5218 (2) above; there are no official State or Territorial valuations of the houses concerned.
  2. Market rents are paid on houses leased by the Commission.

Postal and Telecommunications Department: Houses Owned or Leased (Question No. 5228)

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 his Department.
  2. What is the rental paid by his Department for each house it leases.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The location of each house is as advised in response to Question No. 5217 (2) above; there are no official State or Territorial valuations of the houses concerned.
  2. Market rents are paid on houses leased by the Department.

Australian Telecommunications Commission: Houses Owned or Leased (Question No. 5229)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. What is the location and valuation (by official State and Territorial valuers) of each house owned by the Australian Telecommunications Commission.
  2. What is the rental paid by the Commission for each house it leases.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The location of each house is as advised in response to Question No. 5216 (2) above; there are no official State or Territorial valuations of the houses concerned.
  2. Market rents are paid on houses leased by the Commission.

Australian Postal Commission: Houses Owned or Leased (Question No. 5230)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1975:

  1. 1 ) What is the location and valuation (by official State or Territorial valuers) of each house owned by the Australian Postal Commission.
  2. What is the rental paid by the Commission for each house it leases.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The location of each house is as advised in response to Question No. 5215 (2) above: there ure no official State or Territorial valuations of the houses concerned.
  2. Market rents are paid on houses leased by the Commission. The rental paid on three houses in Queensland which are leased from the Queensland Housing Commission is as set by the Housing Commission and may be slightly lower than market value.

Overseas Telecommunications Commission: Rental Housing (Question No. 5231)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

Do tenants of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission in each location pay rent only or also pay (a) electricity, ( b) gas, (c) telephone and (d) rates.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

Where such services are provided the tenants of all houses pay for (a) electricity, (b) gas, and (c) telephone whilst the Commission pays the municipal and water rates. In respect of telephone services, the Manager of each station and the second-in-charge are provided with semi-official telephones.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Rental Housing (Question No. 5233)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

Do tenants of the Australian Broadcasting Commission 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:

Tenants of the Australian Broadcasting Commission pay for electricity, gas and the use of the telephones, other than for official purposes. The Australian Broadcasting Commission pays rates on houses which it owns.

Postal and Telecommunications Department: Rental Housing (Question No. 5234)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

Do tenants of his Department 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:

Tenants are required to pay for all gas and electricity used except in tropical areas where limited subsidy is provided for the cost of operating air-conditioning units. Tenants also pay all costs associated with private telephones, however, official telephones are provided where necessary, this involves a rental/call allowance subsidy. Excess water rates may be partly subsidised by the Department.

Australian Telecommunications Commission: Rental Housing (Question No. 5235)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

Do tenants of the Australian Telecommunications Commission 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:

Tenants are required to pay for all gas and electricity used except in tropical areas where limited subsidy is provided for the cost of operating air-conditioning units. Tenants also pay all costs associated with private telephones, however, official telephones are provided where necessary, this involving a rental/call allowance subsidy. Telecom Australia is not liable for general rates but makes ex gratia payments to local authorities in respect of these charges, including garbage collection, sewerage and water rates. Individual ex gratia payments to Authorities are not recovered from tenants as the economic rent’ formula contains a uniform component for rates and charges’. Excess water rates are partly subsidised by the Commission.

Australian Postal Commission: Rental Housing (Question No. 5236)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

Do tenants of the Australian Postal Commission 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:

Tenants are required to pay for gas and electricity consumption and, except in arid areas, for excess water charges. Australia Post is not liable for general rates but makes ex gratia payments to local authorities in respect of these charges, including garbage collection, sewerage and water rates. Individual ex gratia payments to Authorities are not recovered from tenants as the ‘economic rent’ formula contains a uniform component for ‘rates and charges’. Only in special circumstances where an officer is on call after hours is the telephone rental subsidised.

Tranquilliser Drugs (Question No. 5330)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article Psychoprofits- Tranquilliser under Stress’ in Time of 7 January 1 980 at page 62.
  2. ) If so, has he, his Department or any other Government instrumentality made any investigation of the pricing policies of Hoffman-La Roche and Co. in the Australian market, following similar investigations in the United Kingdom and Europe.
  3. When was that investigation carried out and by whom.
  4. Is there any evidence to suggest price manipulation by Hoffman-La Roche and Co. on the Australian market.
  5. What were the top 10 tranquilliser drugs on the Australian market for the last 5 years (by generic name, trade name, quantity prescribed and value of prescriptions ) and the cost of each drug to the pharmaceutical benefit scheme.
  6. Is he able to state what proportions of these tranquillisers were prescribed by (a) psychiatric hospitals, (b) general hospitals, (c) health clinics and (d) general practitioners.
  7. Has any investigation of the side effects and contraindications of any or all of these tranquillisers been made by any Government agency within the last 5 years.
  8. If so, is he able to state the findings of any investigation or review and whether this has resulted in any change in the type or number of tranquillisers prescribed in Australia.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. , (3) and (4) I am not aware that any formal Inquiries have been conducted into the pricing policies of F. Hoffman-La Roche and Co. in Australia. However, my Department in its administration ofthe Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has a responsibility to ensure that prices paid for benefit items (which include Valium and other listed psychotropic drugs) are reasonable.

In this regard I am advised that the prices paid in Australia for Valium and other psychotropic drugs generally compare very favourably with their prices in overseas countries.

My Department monitored the proceedings of the U.K. Monopolies Commission investigation into Hoffman-La Roche pricing policies in the early I970’s and was able, as a result of the Commission’s findings, to negotiate a price reduction for Valium in Australia. Since then the patent on diazepam, which is the drug present in Valium, has expired and the prices of Valium preparations have further been reduced as a result of my Department’s policy of not paying significantly more for any particular brand ofthe same drug formulation than for other available brands. This policy applies to all listed benefit items.

  1. My Department does not have information on the prescribing of tranquillisers other than for prescriptions supplied under the provisions of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Pharmaceutical benefit items prescribed for the general public (i.e. other than eligible pensioners) with a Commonwealth price less than the patient contribution do not fall within the scope of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Therefore, the attached Departmental statistics do not indicate trends in prescribing since, due to increases in patient contribution, some items become no longer available as pharmaceutical benefits for the general public.

Cost figures shown make no allowance for the deduction of patient contribution, where applicable.

  1. My Department does not have information on prescribing of tranquillisers by psychiatric hospitals, general hospitals or health clinics.
  2. The Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee, a sub-committee of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, maintains a continuing surveillance of the adverse effects of all drugs including these tranquillisers.
  3. As part of its activities the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee has published several bulletins and case studies describing aspects of the adverse effects of tranquillisers. These have all appeared in the Australian Prescriber, a journal distributed by the Department to all doctors, pharmacists and hospitals throughout Australia. In addition, three articles have been commissioned relating to tranquillisers all of which have been printed. A bibliography appears below listing the articles and the relevant publication.

It is not possible to assess whether there has been any change in the type or number of tranquillisers prescribed in Australia as a result of these activities. However I would draw attention again to the figures and answer provided in (5) above.

Bibliography

  1. ‘Paradoxical Effects of Benzodiazepines ‘-Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee BulletinAustralian Prescriber, Vol. 1 No. 1 1976.
  2. Phenothiazines and Tardive Dyskinesia ‘-Ad verse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee BulletinAustralian Prescriber, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1978.
  3. ‘Oxazepam Withdrawal Reaction ‘-Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee Bulletin- Australian Prescriber, Vol. 3, No. I, 1979.
  4. ‘Tardive Dyskinesia ‘-Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee Case Study-Australian Prescriber, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1979, page 46.
  5. ‘Paradoxical Excitation ‘-Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee Case Study- Australian Prescriber, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1979, page 63.
  6. ‘Nitrazepam’- Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee Case Study- Medical Journal of Australia, 19 May 1979, page 460.
  7. ‘Major Tranquillisers: indications, applications and problems’- G. F. Johnson, Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychiatry, University of Sydney- Australian Prescriber, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1976.
  8. ‘Therapeutic Differences between Benzodiazepines’Australian Prescriber,Vol.3,No. 1, 1979.
  9. ‘Sleep and Hypnosedatives’- F. A. Whitlock, Professor of Psychiatry, University of QueenslandAustralian Prescriber, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1 979.

Syphilis (Question No. 5381)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

Is he able to say what has been the attack rate for syphilis for (a) Aboriginals and (b) whites, for each State and Territory for each year from 1971 to 1979.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

No, with the exception of the Northern Territory where the attack rates are as follows:

I must point out that the pattern of disease caused by the genus of organisms known as treponema (e.g. syphilis, yaws) has altered among Aboriginals. Yaws, a non venereally transmitted disease, once prevalent in north and central Australia has been eradicated.

It has been the experience in other parts of the world that the disappearance of this non-venereal treponemal condition has been followed by a steady rise in the number of cases of venereally transmitted treponemal disease, i.e. Syphilis.

A similar situation has now occurred in Australia.

Soviet Exhibition at Sydney Show (Question No. 5549)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry upon notice, on 28 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Sydney Daily Commercial News of 18 February 1980 concerning the cancellation of an exhibition from the Soviet Union at the 1980 Royal Easter Show, Sydney.
  2. Can he state whether a contract was signed in November 1 978 between the Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales and the Soviet Union; if so, and if a contract was signed, can he state its terms and conditions.
  3. If the exhibition has been cancelled, is he able to say whether the Soviet Union will claim for damages, if so, what course of action will the Government advise the NSWRAS to take.
  4. Will the Government consider compensating the NSWRAS; if so, what sum will be involved.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) to (4) My attention has been drawn to the particular newspaper report to which the honourable member referred. As indicated in that article, the Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales, at the request of the Commonwealth Government, terminated an agreement it had signed in 1978 covering a proposed major exhibition by the USSR at the 1980 Royal Easter Show. It would, of course, be quite inappropriate for Australia to host a major display from the USSR at this time.

The Government has indicated its intention to compensate the Society for losses it may incur arising out of its compliance with the Government’s request but it is too early at this stage to indicate what sum might finally be involved.

The terms of the Memorandum of Agreement cover in extensive detail the conditions under which a licence was granted to the USSR Chamber of Commerce and Industry to mount an exhibition. The USSR Chamber has lodged a claim for damages as a result of the Society’s action in terminating this Agreement. The method of handling this claim is still under consideration.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Question No. 5558)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Attorney-General state in answer to question No. 3435 (Hansard, 26 February 1980, page 393) in part that, in accordance with the general practice of successive Governments, he did not propose to provide information concerning the operations of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization.
  2. In view of the answer to question No. 241 (Hansard, 12 April 1973, page 1461), will the Attorney-General amend and update the answer to question No. 3435.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. Yes.
  2. No.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Collection of Statistics (Question No. 5576)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 5 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has a system known as the Statistical and Management Information Network (SAMIN) been introduced for Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) offices in Queensland only; if so, (a) why was it introduced and (b) is it being assessed in Queensland for possible extension to CES offices in other States
  2. Are CES offices which use SAMIN also required to collect data manually; if so, why.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to claims by staff of the Brisbane metropolitan area CES offices that the SAMIN system of data collection of statistics is adding to their workload.
  4. Do CES offices deal manually with approximately 250 different types of statistics every month.
  5. Does the manual collection of statistics require officers to note almost every detail of CES activities.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. A Statistical and Management Information Network (SAMIN) system has been introduced in Queensland in Brisbane offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES).

    1. SAMIN is being introduced to replace existing clerical statistical collection arrangements and to eliminate the compilation workload which now occurs in CES offices at the end of each month. SAMIN will provide improved information for CES management purposes and ensure the Department has information for the development and evaluation of manpower programs.
    2. SAMIN was developed as a national system and implementation in Queensland country offices and then in other States is planned.
  2. During the implementation of SAMIN CES offices are required to operate both the manual system and the SAMIN system concurrently for a limited period. When satisfactory reconciliation of records is achieved the manual system will be discontinued.
  3. I am aware of claims by some staff of the Brisbane metropolitan CES offices that the SAMIN system of data collection of statistics is adding to their workload. I am advised that during the dual manual and SAMIN system operational period office workload is increased and that additional staff resources are provided to offset this. My Department considers it unlikely that workload will be heavier when SAMIN is fully operational and the manual system discontinued, but this aspect is being examined further.
  4. The number of regular statistical returns which CES offices are required to furnish for use by my Department’s Central Office amounts to 13. In addition, CES offices submit statistical returns to their respective Regional offices for local purposes.
  5. CES offices are staffed on a workload formula. It is therefore essential that statistics on all elements of workload be maintained.

Deffence Service Homes Loans (Question No. 5711)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice, on 26 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were on the waiting list for Defence Service Homes loans as at 26 March 1 980.
  2. What sum was available for Defence Service Homes loans as at 26 March 1980.
  3. What are the terms of repayment of these loans.
  4. Are returned servicemen who are already home owners entitled to Defence Service Homes loans; if not, what means are used to ensure that they do not in fact obtain these loans.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The only waiting period for Defence Service Homes loans is in respect of applications to purchase existing properties and the related statistics are maintained on a monthly basis. The latest figures available show that on 29 February 1 980 there were 2,899 persons on the waiting list.
  2. All loan expenditure is met from the Defence Service Homes Trust Account, which is the medium for both capital and non-capital financial transactions under the Defence Service Homes Act, and the 1 979-80 expenditure program of $78. 4m was based on the anticipated capital receipts over the whole of the year. It is not the practice to make a daily dissection of the Trust Account into capital and non-capital components but even if this were the case the actual capital balance on a particular day would not be indicative of any further amount which would become available from capital receipts over the balance of the year.
  3. Interest is charged on loans at the rate of 3.75 percent per annum on loans up to $12,000 and at 7.25 per cent per annum on any amount by which a loan exceeds $ 12,000. The term of the loan is based on the estimated life of the property but ordinarily would be a period not exceeding 32 years. The loan is repayable with interest by equal instalments over the term of the loan.
  4. The Defence Service Homes Act precludes the granting of a loan where the applicant, or the applicant ‘s spouse, is the owner of any home other than the one the subject of the application. General inquiries are made and a statutory declaration is obtained from the applicant. Provision is made in the Act, for the calling up of the loan if it is later ascertained there was a false declaration in relation to ownership.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 April 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800402_reps_31_hor117/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant