House of Representatives
18 September 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2.1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1173

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Education

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

Dismay at the reduction in the total expenditure on education proposed for1980 and in particular to Government Schools.

Government School bear the burden of these cuts,11.2 per cent while non-Government school will receive an increase of 3.4 per cent.

We call on the Government to again examine the proposals as set out in the guidelines for Education expenditure 1 980 and to immediately restore and increase substantially in real terms the allocation of funds for education expenditure in1980 to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Armitage, Mr Baume, Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Fife, Mr Graham, Mr Hunt, Mr James, Mr Kerin, Mr Martin, Mr Morris, Mr O’Keefe and Mr Ruddock.

Petitions received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the State of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act1 977 should immediately be repealed because:

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

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights.

Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hunt and Mr Martin.

Petitions received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of electors of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act1977 should immediately be repealed because:

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

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights.

Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

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

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

Petition received.

Refugees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petitions received.

Pensions

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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

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

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

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

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

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

Petitions received.

Pre-school Education

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. S.A. Pre-School services are becoming increasingly inadequate.
  2. The development of adequate services has been curtailed by reduced Federal Budget allocations to Pre-Schools in the last two years.
  3. Projected cuts for 1979-80 will cause further deterioration of the quality of services offered.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government increase its allocation for Pre-School education immediately to enable the provision of adequate pre-school services in S.A.

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

Petition received.

Health Insurance

To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled at Canberra. The humble petition of the undersigned electors sheweth:

That whereas Dr Simone Burckhardt a visiting clinical psychologist at the Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, holds the following qualifications, BA; MA; PHD Zurich. Diploma Pedagogy (Geneva), Diploma in psychodrama Paris. Lauro Accademico Rome University.

And whereas Dr Burckhardt specialises in the field of Child Adolescent psychology.

And whereas the medical insurance benefits under Medibank Private and the independent health funds do not include psychological services as provided by Dr Burckhardt or at all in the health insurance cover.

And whereas there is a significant need in the community for psychological services in general and Dr Burckhardt services in particular to be covered by health insurance.

Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will:

Legislate for the introduction of medical insurance benefits under Medibank Private and the independent private funds to cover psychological services as provided by Dr Burckhardt in their health insurance cover.

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

Petition received.

Royal Commission on Human Relationships

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

That because the Report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and especially its recommendations:

  1. Have been widely condemned for its support of unAustralian, anti-family, anti-child behaviour and morals such as incest, promiscuity, abortion, pornography, homosexuality, prostitution and brothels, etc.
  2. Have been strongly criticised by the medical profession for the absence of any medical practitioner on the Commission or on its staff of 31 persons, and for the Commissioners action in rejecting or ignoring relevant medical evidence.
  3. Have been discredited as irresponsible in adopting a new definition of the family, i.e., ‘a varying range of people living together in relationships of commitment’, which has effectively confused the real meaning and intentions of the Report where it refers to the family’.

Therefore the Parliament has a responsibility to the families of Australia not to adopt this controversial Report and its Recommendations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Parliament will:

  1. Simply receive the Report and not adopt its Recommendations,
  2. Set up a Select Parliamentary Committee along the lines of the New Zealand Select Committee to conduct a public inquiry into the ways and means of supporting and strengthening family life and providing adequate protection for children from physical and sexual abuse before as well as after birth in accordance with the U.N.O. Declaration of the Rights of the Child as part of Australia ‘s support for the Year of the Child.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take no measures concerning the Royal Commission on Human Relationships Report that will further undermine and weaken marriage, child-care or the family which is the basic unit of our society.

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

Petition received.

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 of 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 Malcolm Fraser.

Petition received.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned electors of the Division of Wannon respectfully showeth: support for the Chairman of the Gas and Fuel Corporation in the appeal to the Prices Justification Tribunal against rises in the price of L.P. Gas, and support for the approach by the Deputy Premier of Victoria, Mr L. Thompson, to the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, for a reduction in the price of L.P. Gas.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the price of L.P.Gas will be duly reduced.

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

Petition received.

Political and Human Rights

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

Their grave concern and regret that

  1. Queensland is approaching the status of a one-party state,
  2. Members of the Queensland parliament have been denied basic democratic rights in accordance with Westminister principles of parliamentary democracy and
  3. Queensland opposition members have been denied balanced facilities resources and speaking time in the parliament, and more recently have been denied a basic parliamentary right to question aspects of industrial legislation currently before the Queensland legislative assembly, and your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the house will request the government to take the appropriate action to establish a bill of rights describing and protecting basic political and human rights of all Australians, including a clear description of the proper principles and functions of our parliamentary system, both state and federal.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will request the Government to introduce a Bill of Rights to describe and protect political and human rights.

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

Petition received.

Copyright

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

That the copyright amendment bill is inadequate in meeting the complete needs of the handicapped people of Australia and in order to maximise the benefits of this legislation, your petitioners humbly pray:

That the Government will correct the omission of the Queensland tape service for the handicapped from the schedule to the bill.

The Government will extend the provisions of the bill to provide for statutory licences for all reading and tape recordings done by approved organisations for bona fide handicapped persons.

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

Petition received.

Fishing

To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia hereby showeth:

Whereas the undersigned citizens of Australia being professional fishermen engaged in full time employment in the fishing industry in the Portland area:

  1. Deplore the apathy shown by this Government towards the fishing industry, a large and vital one, as regards to foreign exploitation of our natural resources in Australian waters.
  2. Are aware that the so called feasibility study out of Portland for squid fishing in February, March and April1979 by Japanese interests using eleven vessels returned a gross amount in excess of $3. 2m.
  3. Believe that this was not a feasibility study but a commercial undertaking.
  4. Are opposed to any further foreign fishing exploitation in Australian waters.
  5. Believe that in Australia ‘s current economic climate of unemployment and poor rate of exchange there should not be any deprivation of employment of Australians by foreign countries.
  6. Believe that it is time that this Government recognises the vast resources that our Australian waters embrace as they have been already recognised and tapped by most foreign countries either with compliance or noncompliance with Australian laws.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth:

That the Parliament take action to prohibit any further exploitation of our natural fishing resources by foreign enterprises and that the Parliament aid and assist the development of the local fishing industry as it has aided and assisted other primary industries.

The undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria hereby pray the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia to grant the prayer of their petition. by Mr Hurford.

Petition received.

Pornographic Publications

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

That we the undersigned, having great concern at the way in which children are now being used in the production of pornography call upon the Government to introduce immediate legislation:

  1. To prevent the sexual exploitation of children by way of photography for commercial purposes;
  2. To penalise parents/guardians who knowingly allow their children to be used in the production of such pornographic or obscene material depicting children;
  3. To make specifically illegal the importation, publication, distribution and sale of such pornographic child-abuse material in any form whatsoever such as magazines, novels, papers or films;
  4. To take immediate police action to confiscate and destroy all child pornography in Australia and urgent appropriate legal action against all those involved or profiting from this sordid exploitation of children.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will protect all children and immediately prohibit pornographic child-abuse materials, publications or films.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country is causing and will cause widespread inconvenience, confusion, expense and distress.

That there is no certainty that any significant benefits or indeed any benefits at all will follow the use of the new weights and measures.

That the traditional weights and measures are eminently satisfactory.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed, and that the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional and familiar units to be restored to those areas where the greatest inconvenience and distress are occurring, that is to say, in meteorology, in road distances, in sport, in the building and allied trades, in the printing trade, and in retail trade.

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

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

Petition received.

Sale of Publicly Owned Enterprises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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

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

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

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

We now urge you to act in another area of discrimination to handicapped persons by:

Increasing the $20.00 per week income allowed in a sheltered workshop to $40.00 per week, before that income begins to reduce pension benefits; and then tie the $40.00 per week level with C.P.I. pension adjustments in the future.

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

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

Petition received.

Department of Productivity: Working Environment Division

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 transfer of the staff of the Working Environment Division of the Department of Productivity will seriously impede the effective functioning of this element of that Department in its daily contact with industry, commerce and unions, and

That this will lessen the success of Commonwealth initiatives in the fields of employee participation, personnel practice, research, health, safety and national productivity promotion, and

That this will incur unjustifiable extra cost to Commonwealth administration, and

That the proposal is outside the Guidelines set down for public service relocation.

Your petitioners therefore, pray

That Parliament decide that the best usage of the Working Environment Division requires it to be permanently sited in a major industrial city (for example, Melbourne or Sydney) and so it shall remain.

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

Petition received.

Commemorative Stamp

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

The Association of Apex Clubs of Australia was founded in Geelong in 1931 and is the only service club founded in Australia. In March 1981 the Association will celebrate 50 years service to the Australian community. Commemorative stamps have been issued by Australia Post to celebrate the activities of Rotary International and Lions International.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That Australia Post be asked to issue a commemorative stamp in1981 in order to celebrate the50th anniversary of the only Australian service club.

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

Petition received.

Marine Radio Licence Fees

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned electors of the Divisions of the Suburbs of Sydney New South Wales, respectfully showeth:

The proposed increase in marine radio licence fees are to all amateur fishermen a great injustice. Through radio we are saving the government millions of dollars in search and rescue as we tow each other back to port. We are equipped with radios for safety at sea, and they are in use for ten to twelve hours a month on the average. Citizen Band radio is in use every day and in most cases bypasses the telephone, which in one year would justify the increase. Citizen Band radio users have eighteen frequencies and five sets on one licence compared to our one set and four frequencies. Marine Radio is a voluntary public service.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the fee be set at $2.00 for each frequency, which would be just to all concerned.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrStaley.

Petition received.

Marine Radio Licence Fees

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

That we oppose the increase in marine radio licence fees for the following reasons:

  1. . Radios are an essential part of safety equipment.
  2. Marine radio users save government millions of dollars in search and rescue.
  3. Increased licences will deter the boating fraternity from purchasing and using radios for their own safety.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will reconsider the increased licence fee and also consider a reduction for pensioners.

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

Petition received.

page 1177

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I inform the House that the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland ) left Australia on15 September for discussions in New Zealand on trade matters. The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) will act as Minister for Special Trade Representations until Mr Garland ‘s return on 21 September.

page 1177

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1177

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DECENTRALISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I refer to the Press statement of the Minister for National Development of11 September in which he said that 47 projects involving funds totalling $ 17.48m had been approved under the Commonwealth Decentralised Development Program. I ask: Is it a fact that funds in excess of $5m have gone to1 5 projects in electorates held by seven Ministers of the Government? Is it also a fact that four of the six projects funded in Tasmania are located in the Minister’s own electorate of Bass?

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– Let me say first of all that I have no idea where allocations by the Decentralisation Advisory Board lie in relation to electorates. The reason I say that is: The Board examines every application that it gets; that Board has representatives from each State who are public servants and businessmen; and each project is assessed on its merits. The value of that scheme has been shown over and over again. It has promoted industries and enterprises in decentralised areas. More importantly, it has literally created hundreds upon hundreds of jobs. By way of reminder I say to the House that if the Opposition had its way this Program would disappear. The honourable member for Reid has made that clear on many occasions. People who are listening now to this broadcast or who read the proceedings later should realise that the advantages from this Program to all these places around Australia would be taken away by the Australian Labor Party if, unfortunately, it ever got into a position to do so.

page 1178

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, relates to his statement made during the last parliamentary session regarding the proposed inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I ask: Has the Government in fact decided to downgrade or even to abandon this inquiry? If not, when will the inquiry commence, who will be involved in it and who will be setting its guidelines?

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

-The suggestion that the Government had gone cold on the matter of the Australian Broadcasting Commission inquiry has been made in another place. I say to this House and to the people of Australia that this Government is warmer than ever.

Mr Lynch:

– We are warming up.

Mr STALEY:

-We are warming up all the time. The Government is as committed as ever to the principle of regular and independent review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as happens to the great broadcasting authorities in countries such as the United Kingdom and Canada. The atmosphere in which this review will be conducted will be aided significantly by recent major decisions which the Government has made about funding for the ABC, decisions which will provide a stimulus to creative effort within the ABC and which, for the first time ever, give financial planning certainty to the ABC. I make it quite clear that, contrary to some earlier comments in other places, sufficient funds will be available to conduct a proper and full review of the ABC. I am at the moment considering names, including that of a leading broadcaster with experience overseas, to put to the Government in order that the review might be got under way as soon as may be convenient.

page 1178

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DECENTRALISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr HOLDING:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development a question relating to his statement of 1 1 September. Is it a fact that the electorates held by three Ministers have each attracted Federal funds under the Commonwealth Decentralised Development Program in excess of $lm? Is the Minister one of those Ministers and are the other two Ministers the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Veterans ‘Affairs?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– I have not much more to add to the answer which I gave earlier but let me summarise the position once again. The Decentralisation Advisory Board accepts applications from States and individuals for development projects. Applications are assessed on their merits. My position as the responsible Minister, as I have said before in this place, is to stay at arm’s length from the project applications. They are all initially assessed by the Board without any interference or encouragement from me. When the recommendations come to me I act upon them. Whether certain electorates have been favoured according to statistics is another matter. I repeat that the Board makes the assessments on the merits of the projects.

page 1178

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING: EMPLOYMENT

Mr HODGES:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. Now that development of uranium mining has commenced at Nabarlek, Jabiru and Yeelirrie and operations have recommenced at Mary Kathleen in Queensland, what would be the cost in terms of jobs if the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Australian Labor Party policy banning uranium mining were implemented? Were officers of the ACTU ever given information on the reasons for the Government’s decision to approve uranium mining?

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

-The question asked by the honourable member is most pertinent in the aftermath of the tumultuous events last week when, to quote the Leader of the Opposition, the Labor Party in South Australia received a clobbering on Saturday and Bob Hawke received a clobbering at the hands of the left wing at the ACTU Congress. Let me give the honourable gentleman some figures concerning the impact on jobs, actual and potential, if the ACTU ban on uranium mining were ever implemented. At Jabiru the present construction force is 600, a peak construction force will be 800 and the permanent operational force will be 500. Nabarlek at present has a construction force of 450, which is the peak force, and it will have a permanent operational work force of 100. Mary Kathleen in Queensland presently employs 470. At Yeelirrie in Western Australia the peak construction force when mining gets under way will be 1,000 and the operational force will be some 650 with about another 200 non-company employees.

Those numbers are, of course, additional to the kind of jobs that will be created when Roxby Downs gets under way. There will be a construction force of 200,000 to 300,000 and a permanent operational work force of 5,000 and some 50,000 other jobs. It is quite apparent to the House, as it was to the people of South Australia, how damaging the ACTU ban on uranium mining would be to the creation of real jobs in Australia.

The honourable gentleman asked me whether any officers of the ACTU were given information about the Government’s plans for uranium mining. In the course of the Government’s making its decisions in August 1977 and subsequently, my colleagues the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Health and the then Minister for the Environment and I held discussions with Mr Hawke, Mr John Ducker, Mr Bill Kelty and Mr Peter Cook. We laid our cards completely on the table. We made available to them all the information which the Government had which in our minds justified the approval of uranium mining in Australia. It is, therefore, pertinent to note that Mr Hawke, Mr Ducker and Mr Kelty all supported the mining of uranium in Australia. Quite clearly, they were satisfied, as the Government was satisfied, that it was completely safe to mine uranium in Australia. The one person who stood out of that group which was consulted by the Government was Mr Peter Cook. We know from Mr Hawke ‘s own statements to the ACTU Congress that in private conversations Mr Cook said that he agreed that uranium mining should and would go ahead. However, what did he do? He ratted on his union mates in front of the ACTU Congress. He denounced the Government’s decision.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister has used a word which is unparliamentary. I ask him not to do so.

Mr VINER:

- Mr Speaker, let me put it in this way: The position of Mr Cook stands rather incongruously against the publicly avowed decision of Mr Hawke, Mr Ducker and Mr Kelty to accept uranium mining in Australia. I think, from the events of the ACTU Congress last week and the South Australian election, that the people of Australia will support this Government when we seek uranium mining development and the creation of real jobs of the magnitude that I have indicated.

page 1179

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DECENTRALISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I direct a questionto the Minister for National Development. I also refer to his statement of 1 1 September. Is it a fact that the overwhelming majority of the 47 projects funded under the Commonwealth Decentralised Development Program are funded by loans to be repaid over a period of between five and 15 years? Can the Minister explain why only two of the first 38 projects, one of which is in the Minister’s own electorate, attracted nonrepayable grants from the Government?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– Again, I have to repeat what are the procedures of the Decentralisation Advisory Board. If I cannot get them into the thick heads of Opposition members that way I do not know how I will do so. The procedures are clear. I say to the honourable member who asked the question, and I repeat it in general to any other Opposition member and also to the Leader of the Opposition, that if he has a specific question that he wants to ask me about a specific project he should ask it. I will be happy to answer it.

page 1179

QUESTION

INCOME TAX SHARING

Mr McVEIGH:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

-I ask the Treasurer: Is there a population factor in the formula for the distribution of the States’ share of personal income tax and for the calculation of the guaranteed minimum payment to each State? Is each State now on its guaranteed base? Does the population figure for Queensland accurately reflect the 1976 census figure? If there is any injustice to Queensland, the greatest State of all, what action is contemplated to correct it?

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

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is yes, there is a population factor and a State’s share of personal income tax depends on its population as estimated at 3 1 December in a particular financial year. There is also a population factor in the formula used for calculating the guaranteed minimum payment to each State. It is estimated at present that in 1979-80 all States will receive their guaranteed minimum payment. The population figures used to adjust all States are the Commonwealth Statistician’s estimates for the end of December in each year. The original levels on which Queensland ‘s population increase is based were underestimated prior to the 1976 census. While the population increases are accurate, the under-enumeration of the bases meant that Queensland has received a lower level of funding through this method than otherwise. That problem has been looked at and remains under examination by Commonwealth and State officers as well as by the Premiers Conference. I should point out to the honourable member that Queensland is the only State in Australia receiving special financial assistance through the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and in assessing the level of that assistance the Commission takes account of the actual levels of payment made to Queensland and adjusts its recommendations accordingly, to ensure that Queensland is not disadvantaged as a result of the underestimate of population prior to 1 976.

page 1180

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DECENTRALISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I refer to the Press statement of the Minister for National Development on 1 1 September concerning the Commonwealth regional development program. Have funds in excess of $ 1 ,750,000 gone to seven projects in the electorates held by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

-The details of the allocations that have been made to all projects approved by me, on recommendation from the Decentalisation Advisory Board, have been made available to the Leader of the Opposition. I have made no secret of any allocation, the terms of the loan, or anything else. The honourable member can make the calculation as well as anybody else can. I invite him to go to the Leader of the Opposition and rind out that information. He will then have his answer.

page 1180

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DECENTRALISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr SHORT:
BALLARAT, VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for National Development: Is it a fact that under the Government’s decentralisation program the firm of McCain Australia Pty Ltd in my electorate has received a loan of $370,000 to help finance a major expansion of its operations, and that this decision has been welcomed throughout my electorate? Is it also a fact that this expansion has already led to the creation of jobs during the construction stage and will lead to the creation of new and permanent jobs when production commences in the next week or so, and that the potato growing industry throughout the central highlands region of Victoria will benefit significantly? Finally, I ask whether the abolition of this program, as advocated by some leading members of the Opposition, would lead to the destruction of jobs in areas about which the Australian Labor Party professes to express concern.

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– I thank the honourable member for that question. It demonstrates what I was saying before and have said on other occasions in this House. The Decentralisation Advisory Board and its program have had a dynamic effect on regions and cities all around Australia. The honourable member is talking about one specific project and the points in the question that he has asked, in relation to job creation, the effect on investment and so on, are absolutely correct. From the sorts of questions that have been asked by members of the Opposition this afternoon one would have to say that they would deny the honourable member the opportunity to have such a project funded under the program on two counts: Firstly, they have some sort of philosophical hang-up on such a program. As I have said, the honourable member for Reid goes around the countryside attacking this program at every opportunity. Secondly, because the project happens to be in a Liberal member’s electorate they would deny the farmers and people who work in the processing factories the benefits of the honourable member’s ability to win a case through the Board- not by political patronage, but through the Board- on the merits of the case. The Leader of the Opposition and his mates behind him ought to wake up to one thing: If you got out and won a few seats around the country -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman must address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr NEWMAN:

– I am sorry, Mr Speaker. The point I was making is that if members of the Labor Party got up and won a few seats around the countryside they might have a better chance of qualifying for some grants themselves.

page 1180

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DECENTRALISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr HUMPHREYS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

-I also direct a question to the Minister for National Development. I also refer to his Press statement of 1 1 September. Are two of the projects funded under the Commonwealth regional development program -

Mr Yates:

– I raise a point of order. Is it acceptable in this House for four members of the Opposition -

Mr Humphreys:

– Five.

Mr Yates:

– For five members of the Opposition to address the same question to the Minister? Is this not a case of -

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Yates:

– Wait a minute, Mr Speaker. You have not heard my submission.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Holt will resume his seat.

Mr HUMPHREYS:

-Are two of the projects funded under the Commonwealth Decentralised Development Program located in the electorate of the Prime Minister? Did one of these projects attract a loan of $345,000 to the Portland Harbour Trust? Did the Minister say on 2 1 February this year that the usual interest rate for such loans was 8.8 per cent but he was not prepared to say what the interest rate was for the Portland loan? Is it a fact that $ 1 1 5,000 of the Portland loan was made available interest free? Can the Minister explain this favoured treatment for the Prime Minister’s electorate? Can he say why he suppressed this information in February when the loan was announced?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I permitted the question to be completed but two of the words used in the course of the question were not appropriate words to use in asking a question. The honourable gentleman will be aware of the words. They argued the issue for which he is seeking information. I ask him not to do that in the future and I ask all members not to include words of the kind in their questions.

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– I thank the honourable member for Griffith for at last coming to a specific project about which information is wanted. I am very glad to tell him the exact details of the circumstances of that Portland trawler base loan and grant. The facts are that the Portland Harbour Trust Commissioners requested a loan of $230,000 and a grant of $1 15,000 for the construction of a trawler base. The assistance approved under the program was a loan of up to $230,000 for a period of 15 years at 8.8 per cent interest with periodical repayments calculated on a 30-year repayment period, and an interest free loan- not a grant- of up to $115,000 for a term of 15 years. The projects under this scheme have a very valuable impact on the region to which they belong and the Portland trawler base project is no exception. This project will provide a base for up to 20 large trawlers, encourage the establishment of associated shore-based industries, such as fish and fishmeal processing, and generate significant long term employment opportunities. If there is one thing that the Opposition likes to talk about it is the creation of jobs for people in this country. Here is a classic case of the creation of employment opportunities for people, and they are not just short term employment opportunities- for three weeks, a month or six months- but long term employment opportunities.

The application for assistance was strongly supported by the Victorian Department of State Development, Decentralisation and Tourism. The Decentralisation Advisory Board considered that the project should be assisted because of its potential to exploit the resource base of the region, which included newly-discovered fishing grounds and existing harbour facilities, and because of its location, being the closest port to the fishing grounds. The Program guidelines specifically provide for these two matters to be taken into account. I point out to the honourable member for Griffith that this was not some new initiative on the Board ‘s part or on my part in approving the recommendation, as had been done earlier in the case of the Cairns Harbour Trust. I suppose the poor old honourable member for Leichhardt will now get into trouble. The Board recommended concessional assistance because, although the receipts from the berthing charges would not fully cover costs, there will be annual regional benefits from which the applicant cannot earn income. The value of the regional benefits will exceed the direct cash deficit of the project.

page 1181

QUESTION

PREFERENCE PURCHASING SCHEMES

Mr ALDRED:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce concerned about the growth of State Government purchasing preference schemes which run counter to the spirit of free trade between the States and open market competition? What is the effect of this practice? Was this matter raised with Ministers at the recent Commonwealth-State industry meeting? If so, what was the outcome?

Mr LYNCH:
LP

-I thank the honourable gentleman for that question, which is very similar in substance to a question asked of me in the last session by the honourable member for Sturt. The Government is very concerned at the growth which has taken place in recent years in State preference schemes. There is no economic rationale for schemes of this type. As the honourable gentleman has made clear, these schemes lead directly to a distortion of free trade between the States and are certainly very unhelpful to cost containment of the normal operations of the open market or free market system in Australia. They lead directly to a misallocation of economic resources. The Commonwealth’s position in relation to State preference schemes is quite clear and has been clear for some time. The matter was raised at the meeting of industry Ministers which took place in Brisbane in early August this year. A Commonwealth-State working party, consisting of officials of the Commonwealth and a number of States, has been established to investigate the schemes as they exist at present and to see what action ought to be taken by the States. As soon as I can report the results of that working party to the honourable gentleman and to other members of this House who are as concerned as I am sure he is, I shall certainly do so.

page 1182

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DECENTRALISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Minister for National Development. It follows his answers on the subject of the Government’s Decentralised Development Program in which he claimed that the Decentralisation Advisory Board assesses claims on their merits. Why is there apparently so much more merit in claims from Government electorates for this sort of assistance? Why is there even more apparent merit for claims from electorates of Government Ministers, especially the Prime Minister’s electorate? Does the Minister recognise on the basis of facts presented during Question Time today that there is strong prima facie evidence that the Commonwealth Decentralised Development Program is used by the Government under his administration to scoop deeply into the pork barrel?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

-As usual, the Leader of the Opposition’s questions in this sort of vein are almost beyond contempt.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– It is the best he can do.

Mr NEWMAN:

– If this is the best that the Leader of the Opposition and the rest of the Opposition can do by way of attack in Question Time, I give them no hope for the next 50 years.

page 1182

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DECENTRALISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr COTTER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister for National Development tell me whether projects which benefit from the Commonwealth Decentralised Development Program are approved under well defined guidelines as set out within the relevant legislation? Can he point out the employment prospects of the projects? Is it a fact that despite continual probing by the Opposition, the Minister has not yet mentioned the projects in the Kalgoorlie electorate which have received assistance under the Decentralised Development Program?

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– I do not know whether the Opposition has now started a chain whereby every member on the Government side is going to get up and seek endorsement for those projects that he may have happened to receive.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The House will come to order.

Mr NEWMAN:

– As everybody keeps trying to tell the Leader of the Opposition, if he could only win some seats out in the countryside he might also be in a position to qualify for decentralisation grants. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie is absolutely right. The project in his electorate is another very good example of encouraging -

Mr Hayden:

– Pork barrelling -

Mr NEWMAN:

– I ask the Leader of the Opposition to keep quiet. Really, he is getting a bit pathetic.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– Do you know what they used to call him in Vietnam, especially when he lost his way?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable the Leader of the Opposition to remember his position as a leader of a party in this national Parliament.

Honourable members interjecting;

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is far too much interjectng from members on my right. I ask honourable members on my right to remain silent. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to cease interjecting.

Mr NEWMAN:

– I just feel sorry for him.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will answer the question and make no comments of that kind.

Mr NEWMAN:

– I was saying to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie that again he illustrates for us another very good example of the advantages of this program and the benefits it is bringing to so many places outside metropolitan areas. I cannot give the honourable member the exact figure; if I am incorrect I shall have to correct it later. Approximately 2,000 jobs have been created by this program and that is not to be sneezed at. I am sure that all members of the Opposition would endorse a program that produced so many jobs outside metropolitan areas.

page 1182

QUESTION

FEDERAL ELECTIONS

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-In view of the Prime Minister’s refusal once again yesterday in a Press conference to kill speculation about an early election, and in view of his previous comments about keeping options open, will he now take the opportunity to reiterate his commitment to the principle of simultaneous elections stated in 1977?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I have been advised that the Leader of the Opposition’s office over the last three or four months has been trying to promote speculation about an early election. I suppose the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now adding to that, but there is a great difference between the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition comes out and does it in the open and that is fair enough. I would have thought that the Opposition, at the moment, had had enough of elections.

page 1183

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-Has the Minister for Health read the advice given to the public as to what they should do regarding health insurance as from 1 September? Does he agree with the advice given in the latest edition of the consumers magazine Choice to the effect that people would be better off not to insure privately as from 1 September?

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

– I have read the article in Choice magazine. I would like to comment upon it because I think that in fairness to the public the other side needs to be put. The article overlooks the two very important factors regarding health insurance. Firstly, it ignores the general point that people insure themselves against loss or damage while not seeking to recover their premiums. Secondly, the article also ignores the desire of people to exercise choice of doctor in the public hospital system. The magazine, I think, quite clearly ignores those two very important points about insurance. I am doubtful that the same magazine would advise every householder not to insure his or her home. I am very doubtful that the same magazine would have advised people not to insure their cars.

Dr Klugman:

– If the Government refunded all except $20 -

Mr HUNT:

– The honourable member for Prospect interjects because he supports the view put by Choice. He is quite entitled to advance that point of view, but I think in so doing he is leading people into making very risky and dangerous decisions. No sensible person insures his house, for instance, hoping that it will be burnt down or insures a motor vehicle hoping that it is going to be involved in a car accident so that he might recover his premiums or some damages. People insure against the loss of property and they insure themselves against health costs for fear that they may have quite a considerable run of medical or hospital expenses. I believe that generally speaking people would be wise to insure themselves against the high cost of medical treatment. The honourable member for Prospect happens to enjoy an income level at which he can afford to take the risk. He undoubtedly has some medical friends who may even carry out procedures on him for nothing. Probably they would be glad to do so. I know a few doctors who might use the scalpel on him.

Mr Scholes:

– I raise a point of order. It is inappropriate and, I think, contrary to the practices of this House for a Minister to impute improper motives to a member. At the moment the Minister for Health is making a scurrilous and low attack on the honourable member for Prospect.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask honourable members on my left and on the corner benches to remain silent while the point of order is being made.

Mr Scholes:

– The Minister claimed in his last sentence that because the honourable member for Prospect is a medical practitioner he is prepared to utilise his position to mislead the public. I consider, and I think the House would agree, that that is an attack on the honourable member and imputes motives to him which no member in this House, except possibly one or two Government Ministers, would hold.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not accept that the Minister has imputed improper motives to the honourable member for Prospect, but I do think that his language could be moderated.

Mr HUNT:

– The only mistake I might have made -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will not comment on the ruling.

Mr HUNT:

– Instead of mentioning a scalpel I probably should have said a burdizzo.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. If he believes that he can make fun of the House or of a member he is badly mistaken. I think that what he has just said should be withdrawn immediately. I hope that an apology will be offered by the Minister.

Mr HUNT:

-Oh, Mr Speaker, let us get on with the job. I do apologise to the honourable gentleman.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister withdraw the remark?

Mr HUNT:

– Yes, I withdraw it. From 1 September people have had to pay for all medical procedures up to $20 out of their own pockets.

They need to remember that if they have a series of medical procedures it could be a very costly experience for them. As from the first of this month the Government has been meeting all scheduled medical costs over $20. Nobody can guarantee that they will enjoy good health. Uninsured people who become seriously or chronically ill could be up for out of pocket medical expenses of a considerable magnitude unless they are classified as disadvantaged or they are pensioners with pensioner health benefit cards. So far as hospital insurance is concerned, people will still be wise to insure for doctor of choice if they want to exercise their right to choose a doctor to treat them in a hospital. Choice is a very respected magazine but it has published a series of selective examples. I believe that those examples will tend to give the wrong impression. I asked my Department to prepare three other examples involving a reasonable spread of medical and hospital services for not uncommon illnesses. I would like the opportunity to incorporate those examples in Hansard for the benefit of people who take this issue seriously. People will have an opportunity to make a decision on the examples given by Choice and the examples worked out by the medical people in my Department.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Will the Minister define precisely what it is that he wishes to incorporate in Hansard?

Mr HUNT:

-The first example deals with the costs of a family for a year; the second example deals with a patient who starts to develop an illness; and the third example deals with a child who runs a temperature and so on.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Hayden:

– Only if he puts in the Choice article.

Mr HUNT:

-That is fair enough; I do not mind. The Choice article has been published.

Mr SPEAKER:

-We will take them one at a time.

Mr Hayden:

– Put the Choice article in first. We have played cards with you before.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave being sought?

Mr HUNT:

-No. The Leader of the Opposition is being very mean-minded. He is a very mean-minded little man- whingeing, bellyaching Bill.

page 1184

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR: AUSTRALIAN AID

Mr FRY:

– Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs read the report of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid which alleges misuse of Australian aid sent to East Timor? What action is the Government taking to ensure that future aid from Australia to East Timor is not misused? Will the Minister insist on Australian Red Cross or government officials being admitted to East Timor to observe the distribution of our aid so that the Australian Parliament and the people of Australia can be kept informed of what happens to our aid for East Timor? Is the Minister aware that Indonesia is insisting that all material aid to East Timor should be delivered to Sourabaya or Jakarta so that the aid can be seen to come from Indonesia rather than from outside sources? Does the Government intend to go along with this deception?

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

-Last week I had fairly extensive discussions with representatives of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. I discussed with them the report that they brought down in regard to the severe privation in East Timor and matters relating to Australian aid in East Timor. The House will be aware that for a considerable time we have been pressing to get the International Red Cross into Timor. That has in fact occurred. On14 September, I think it was, I announced that Australia would provide 2,500 tonnes of corn valued at approximately $625,000 to help to relieve the severe food shortages in East Timor. The corn which has been offered to the Indonesian Government has been offered for distribution by the Indonesian Red Cross as part of its joint program with the International Committee of the Red Cross. It is additional to the 90 tonnes of vegetable oil and 25 tonnes of protein biscuits which were provided last month. It is a joint enterprise between the Indonesian Red Cross and the International Red Cross. Frankly, I would rather welcome the new relief program than cast aspersions on it. Besides welcoming it, I point out that the sorts of materials, the funds and the type of assistance being rendered are the sorts of things that are required. Those things are being distributed, as I say, under a joint project between the International Red Cross and the Indonesian Red Cross.

I come to the thrust of the criticism of the nature of the programs within East Timor. Of course, it is very difficult to comment substantively on a report which ACFOA has brought down in regard to aid distribution in East Timor. I have indicated that I will examine further the matters its representatives raised with me last week. It is difficult because anonymous and unverifiable sources have put forward evidence in regard to this document. In regard to the aid which was purchased under the Australian grant that was announced in 1978 and delivered by barge, certainly Australian officials were satisfied that the storage and the distribution facilities used for the aid were quite satisfactory. They were also impressed with the arrangements they have seen for the distribution of relief material. I must be guided by what I am told by my officials who have travelled there and seen this aid being distributed. I must place that ahead of uncorroborated and seemingly unsubstantiated allegations from elsewhere. Furthermore, the New Zealand Red Cross drew similar conclusions when it visited East Timor last January. So I think it is time that we stood back and looked a little dispassionately, if that is possible in the midst of humanitarian relief and the suffering that has occurred, at the effort that Indonesia is making jointly with the International Red Cross. If I may say so, although it is difficult ever to expect it, we will perceive that the Australian Government is doing as much as it can to assist in the rehabilitation of that country.

page 1185

BULK BILLING BY DOCTORS

Mr BOURCHIER:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Has the working party that was set up to monitor the bulk billing by doctors of disadvantaged persons’ medical accounts to the Department of Health reported to the Minister or the Government? If so, is the scheme working satisfactorily?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– The working party that was set up by the Government to investigate the operation of the bulk billing or direct billing scheme for disadvantaged people has reported to me. The scheme is working very well indeed. There have not been many problems associated with it. Indeed, the average monthly number of bulk billed services during the February-April period fell by only 5 per cent when compared with the July-October period last year, the average fall being from about 1.7 million services to 1.6 million services a month. The benefits paid for bulk billing services during the February-April period in1 979 fell by about 2 per cent compared with the July-October 1978 period. So the monthly average in terms of value of total benefits declined from about $ 15.4m to about $15m.

More doctors are bulk billing now than prior to 1 November, but they are bulk billing slightly fewer services, which seems to indicate that the doctors probably are being a little more selective in the type of patient they are bulk billing. There is a general feeling in the community that the medical profession is co-operating very well in the Government’s efforts to try to provide a special arrangement or a special benefit to the disadvantaged people in the community. For that and for the co-operation it is giving the community I thank the medical profession generally.

Dr Klugman:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Could the Minister for Health be asked to incorporate that document in Hansard?

Mr HUNT:

-Oh yes, no trouble.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

When announcing the scheme, designed to pay the medical bills of the disadvantaged, I gave an undertaking that a working party consisting of officers of my department and representatives of the A.M.A would review the scheme after the first six months of its operation.

That review has been completed and the new arrangements appear to be working satisfactorily.

A further review will be undertaken during the month of November to ascertain how the scheme is working in the light of the changes to the health insurance system applying from1st September this year.

The average monthly number of bulk-billed services during the February-April period fell by only 5 per cent compared with the July-October1 978 period:

The average falling from about1.7 million services to about1 .6 million per month.

The benefits paid for bulk-billed services during the February-April1979 period fell by about 2 per cent compared with the July-October1 978 period:

The monthly average declining from about S1 5.4m to about $1 5m.

There does not appear to be any abuse of the bulk-billing arrangements.

More doctors are bulk billing, but they are bulk billing about 5 per cent less services than prior to abolition of bulk billing for the population as a whole.

page 1185

REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL

Mr SPEAKER:

– I present, pursuant to statute, the report of the Auditor-General accompanied by the financial statements prepared by the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) for the year 1978-79.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– by leave- I move:

  1. That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General for the year 1978-79.
  2. That the paper be printed.

The copy of the report which the AuditorGeneral has transmitted to the House in respect of the 1978-79 financial year is, as required by section 53 (3) (A) of the Audit Act, accompanied by a copy of the annual financial statements prepared by me pursuant to section 50 (4) of the Audit Act. The form of the statements differs from that presented in previous years as a direct result of one of a number of important amendments made by the Audit Amendment Act 1979, which was assented to on 7 March 1979.

The amendments affect the statements in two basic ways, both of which reflect the greater emphasis now given by the Audit Act to the responsibility of permanent heads for the financial management of their departments. Firstly, the information on receipts and expenditure has been rearranged so that the basic classification is by department rather than by fund. All relevant transactions of a department whether from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Trust Fund or the Loan Fund, are shown under the departmental heading. In accordance with the definition now contained in the Audit Act, ‘department’ in this context includes a branch or part of the Australian Public Service in relation to which a person has the powers of a permanent head.

Honourable members will, I am sure, find this form of presentation much more useful than the format followed for very many years in the previous statement of receipts and expenditure which accompanied the Auditor-General’s report. Summaries of total receipts and expenditure from the various funds, however, continue to be shown in tables similar to those used in previous years. The second basic change results from the requirement of section 50 (3) of the Audit Act for certain information to be furnished by permanent heads. Prior to the recent amendments, the Auditor-General was obliged to explain in full the statement prepared by the Minister for Finance. That requirement has been removed. Instead, it is now the responsibility of each permanent head to provide explanatory material in respect of his own department.

In particular, the Act requires that the explanations include the following details not previously reported to the Parliament: The total number and aggregate value of act of grace payments made during the year under my authority; the number and aggregate value of payments due to the Commonwealth, recovery of which has been waived during the year under my authority; particulars, in summary form, of amounts written off during the year in respect of losses or deficiencies of moneys or stores, irrecoverable revenue, irrecoverable debts and overpayments.

In redesigning the statements to incorporate these basic changes, a number of improvements has also been made to the format. Some of the summary tables have been changed to give more information. Honourable members will note that additional detail is given on the transactions of individual trust accounts within the Trust Fund.

On the other hand, we have omitted some of the tables previously included in the AuditorGeneral ‘s explanations where that information is available in other Budget papers.

I should also add that, earlier this year, there was an exchange of correspondence on the form of these statements between my Department and the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. As a result of that, an undertaking was given to the Chairman that these statements would be discussed with the Committee following their presentation and, if necessary, revised in the light of the Committee ‘s view.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1186

DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND RESOURCES

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Trade and Resources for the year 1978-79.

page 1186

AUSTRALIAN EGG BOARD

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present an interim statement of the Australian Egg Board’s activities for the year 1978-79.

page 1186

DAIRYING RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 16 ( 1 ) of the Dairying Research Act 1972 I present the seventh annual report of the Dairying Research Committee for the year ended June 1979.

page 1186

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY CORPORATION

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim annual report of the Australian Dairy Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1979.

page 1186

CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 72 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975 I present the annual report of the Capital Territory Health Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

page 1186

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

For the information of honourable members I present an interim statement on the activities of the Department of Social Security for 1 978-79.

page 1187

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · Warringah · LP

– Pursuant to section 42 (d) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 I present the annual return of persons granted Australian citizenship for the year ended June 1979.

page 1187

AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL OFFICE

Mr John McLeay:
Minister for Administrative Services · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the interim annual report of the Australian Electoral Office 1978-79.

page 1187

TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1 974 I present the fifth annual report of the Trade Practices Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 979.

page 1187

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL GALLERY

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs · Wentworth · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present a review of the Australian National Gallery’s activities for the year ended 30 June 1979.

page 1187

ENVIRONMENT: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present two agreements, one between the Commonwealth of Australia and New South Wales and the other between the Commonwealth of Australia and Western Australia, in relation to the provision of financial assistance for projects related to the environment for 1978-79, made under the provisions of the Environment (Financial Assistance) Act 1977.

page 1187

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Macquarie has indicated to me that he wishes to make a personal explanation. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GILLARD:
Macquarie

-I do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr GILLARD:

-On 28 August the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) referred in the adjournment debate to a Macquarie Federal Electorate Conference and a barbecue. He said that ‘the Liberal member for Macquarie, Mr Reg Gillard, was another guest of honour’. On 29 August the honourable member for Melbourne

Ports (Mr Holding) made a further reference. He said that the ‘so-called charge d’affaires of the so-called Croatian embassy was entertained on an official basis by Liberal parliamentarians including the Federal member for Macquarie’. On 30 August the honourable member for Melbourne Ports made further reference to the effect that the so-called charge d’affaires was given an official welcome by the Macquarie electorate conference of the Liberal Party.

However, the final misrepresentation was made last Thursday, 13 September, by the honourable member for Chifley in a speech in the adjournment debate when, in referring to articles from a Croatian newspaper, he said:

These articles referred to a barbecue which had been organised by the Macquarie and Chifley Federal Councils of the Liberal Party of which the main organiser, of course, was the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Gillard ).

Of course, the honourable member for Chifley was wrong once again. Firstly, I was overseas, in China and Japan, as a representative of this Government when the decision was made to invite Mr Despoja. I defend the right of my Federal Electorate Conference or any Federal electorate conference to invite whom it sees fit to be a guest speaker. Since that date a member of the Greek community has been guest speaker at a Macquarie federal conference and representatives of other ethnic groups will be invited in the future.

On 29 August the honourable member for Melbourne Ports said that Mr Despoja was entertained by Liberal parliamentarians including the Federal member for Macquarie. Mr Speaker, I was the only member of Federal Parliament present. Due to the manner in which Mr Despoja was invited and due to my concern, I would like to quote from a letter dated 1 March. It was handed to Alderman Dr Eileen Cammack on 2 March, prior to the conference and barbecue. A copy of this letter was given to Alderman Dr Cammack to hand to Mr Taylor, the Liberal Federal President of the Chifley conference. That letter reads:

Dear Mrs Cammack,

I am grateful for your invitation to me to attend as a guest of honour, the Macquarie and Chifley Federal Electorate Conferences’ Barbecue and Social to be held on 4 March 1979.

I am bound, however, as the Member for Macquarie and a member of the Government to express my strong reservations over the decision to invite Mr Mario Despoja in his capacity as the self-styled ‘Charge d ‘Affaires’ of the socalled ‘Croatian Embassy’ as the other guest of honour at the Barbecue and Social.

I should stress at this point that I mean no criticism of Mr Despoja as a private citizen or as a member of a particular ethnic group.

I should also make it clear that it is not the Government’s wish to discriminate against the Croatian community or to stop, or hinder members of that community forming groups and clubs, where these are not aimed at a state or government with which Australia has normal diplomatic relations.

Let me briefly outline the Government’s position as regards the ‘Croatian Embassy’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has gone far enough in quoting the letter to establish his position.

Mr GILLARD:

-May I read the last paragraph, which is only short?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yes, I will hear that.

Mr GILLARD:

-Then I will ask for leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard. The last paragraph of the letter reads:

In accepting your kind invitation I am under an obligation to regard Mr Despoja’s attendance at the Barbecue and Social as being only in his capacity as a private citizen.

I trust that that is the end of the matter. I ask that the whole letter be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows- 1 March 1979

Mrs E. Cammack President Macquarie Federal Electorate Conference 30 Mulgoa Road Penrith 2750

Dear Mrs Cammack

I am grateful for your invitation to me to attend as a guest of honour, the Macquarie and Chifley Federal Electorate Conferences’ Barbecue and Social to be held on 4 March 1979.

I am bound, however, as the Member for Macquarie and a member of the Government to express my strong reservations over the decision to invite Mr Mario Despoja in his capacity as the self-styled ‘Charge d ‘Affaires’ of the socalled ‘ Croatian Embassy ‘ as the other guest of honour at the Barbecue and Social.

I should stress at this point that I mean no criticism of Mr Despoja as a private citizen or as a member of a particular ethnic group.

I should also make it clear that it is not the Government’s wish to discriminate against the Croatian community or to stop, or hinder members of that community forming groups and clubs, where these are not aimed at a state or government with which Australia has normal diplomatic relations.

Let me briefly outline the Government’s position as regards the ‘Croatian Embassy’. Australia is a party to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. That Convention imposes on Australia distinct and binding obligations regarding any diplomatic mission accredited to this country. The so-called ‘Croatian Embassy’ has thrown doubt on Australia’s ability and willingness to protect the rights guaranteed by the Geneva Convention.

The Government respects the sovereignty of individual nations. It cannot therefore view casually an attempt to establish and maintain an organisation which is openly dedicated to the destruction of a friendly state. Such an organisation impedes the correct and orderly conduct of

Australia’s international relations and is damaging to the national interest.

If the Government were to allow the precedent set by the Croatian Embassy’ to go unnoticed we could be faced with a rash of so-called Embassies representing other minority groups with a grudge against a particular government.

Further, it has been a longstanding policy of Australian governments to oppose the importation into Australia of alien political and racial feuds. The Government is particularly concerned about the aggravation of tension between certain ethnic groups.

Accordingly the Government has an obligation through the Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act 1978, to institute legal proceedings for the closure of the ‘Croatian Embassy’.

In accepting your kind invitation I am under an obligation to regard Mr Despoja’s attendance at the Barbecue and Social as being only in his capacity as a private citizen.

Yours sincerely

  1. GILLARD, M.P. Member for Macquarie
Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

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

Mr SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Chifley.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– In the first instance, I gather that the letter is from a Mr Taylor, not from the honourable member for Macquarie (MrGillard).

Mr Baillieu:

– You are wrong.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Who wrote the letter?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley will state how he has been misrepresented.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Yes. The point I wish to make is that it has been suggested that I had wrongly made an imputation against the honourable member for Macquarie. The position is to the contrary. I am quite happy to table these documents. I have here three Press reports, including one with a photograph of the honourable member for Macquarie with Mr Despoja.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat. What the honourable member is saying is clearly a question of debate. The honourable member for Macquarie said he was misrepresented, stated how he was misrepresented and sought to set the matter straight so far as he saw it. The honourable member for Chifley is now debating the issue. He is not making a personal explanation.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order for your consideration. What the honourable member for Macquarie said in fact was that the honourable member for Chifley was wrong and implied very strongly, if he did not explicitly state it, that the honourable member for Chifley had misled the House. In the circumstances I believe that the honourable member for Chifley should have at least the opportunity to make clear the basis of his original assertion so as to remove any doubt at all as to the credibility of what he was saying.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will allow the honourable member for Chifley to continue.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– The very point I wish to make is that when making the statements in regard to the honourable member for Macquarie I had before me Press reports from Spremnost Hrvatski Tjednik the newspaper which is said to be the only Croatian newspaper in Australia. I wish to make it clear, as I did last Thursday night in the adjournment debate, that only a very few of the extremist elements are infiltrating the Liberal Party and not the great mass of the Croatian people who are very fine citizens.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is now debating the matter.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Well, I wish to make that clear otherwise I could be very seriously misrepresented. I also have reports from the Penrith Press- from the honourable member’s own electorate- showing a photograph of the honourable member with the so-called charge d’affaires of the Croatian Embassy, which was outlawed by the honourable member’s own Government. I also want to make the point that I recollect that in Press reports at the time it was said that a Minister of the Crown was to attend that barbecue but declined to do so because of the embarrassment the presence of the so-called charge-d ‘affaires would create for the Government. But evidently that did not apply to the honourable member.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I have one other newspaper article. It shows quite clearly that this gentleman was welcomed to the function by the honourable member for Macquarie. If that is not direct association with these extremist elements, I do not know what is. If the honourable member wants to invite others, such as supporters of Adolf Hitler and Mussolini -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He is now arguing the matter.

page 1189

AUSTRALIA-JAPAN FOUNDATION

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Australia- Japan Foundation Act 1976, 1 present the second annual report of the Australia-Japan Foundation 1978.

page 1189

AUSTRALIA’S RELATIONS WITH THE THIRD WORLD

Report and Ministerial Statement

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Committee on Australia’s Relations with the Third World and I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

Mr PEACOCK:

– The Government announced the establishment of this Committee in April 1978. In doing so it recognised that the concerted approach of Third World developing countries to a range of issues- global, regional and localrepresents an increasingly important factor in world affairs. In recent years these countries have successfully insisted that matters of importance to them be placed high on the international agenda. They have waged international political campaigns which have caused countries individually more powerful and wealthy than them to alter their stance on central issues. They have shown a capacity to impose serious political costs on some countries which they regard as opposed to them. The Third World is an object of strategic attention and competition on the part of the superpowers. The internal problems of some Third World countries are a major source of instability in the world, capable of compelling the involvement of others.

Some Third World countries have the most rapidly developing economies in the world, and that development poses serious questions of adjustment for others. Some have little prospect of development and their poverty and hopless ness also present serious moral and political problems. The question of whether the future relationship between developed and developing countries will be one of confrontation or cooperation has loomed large during the 1 970s. It will continue to be a key question in the 1980s. As the meeting in Cuba of the Non-Aligned Movement has most recently demonstrated, the Third World countries are highly diverse and they have important differences among themselves. Nevertheless, there are powerful forces of unity operating among them which have enabled them to maintain an impressive degree of solidarity on a range of issues in their dealings with the developed countries. These forces are likely to be durable.

All this is of unique concern to Australia. Unlike nearly all other developed countries, we live in a region of Third World countries. Our strategic environment is a Third World environment. Most of our exports and imports pass through Third World waters. Our most rapidly growing trade is with Third World countries. Our air routes pass over Third World countries. Refugees from Third World countries reach our shores. In our region, some Third World countries are currently experiencing an industrial revolution, the rapidity of which is unparalleled in human history. The development of others languishes dangerously behind the rate of population growth. The political systems, social structures, cultures and attitudes towards human rights of our Third World neighbours differ in important aspects from ours. We are conspicuously different within our regional environment.

For all these reasons, it is crucial that we understand the phenomenon of the Third World and its implications for us. It is crucial that we understand the forces of change which are operating through it. It is crucial that we formulate sound and forward looking policies on the basis of that understanding. It is no exaggeration to say that our future as a nation depends on our so doing. It was for these reasons that I recommended to the Government the establishment of this Committee. The Committee was a strong, broad based one which included representatives from business, the trade union movement, the academic community and the Public Service. It was chaired by Professor Owen Harries of the University of New South Wales. Its members served, of course, in their individual capacities and the report represents their independent consensual judgment. The Committee’s terms of reference called upon it to:

Identify the salient features of the Third World as a factor in international affairs and to assess the ways in which these are likely to evolve; examine the relationships of the Third World with other countries and groups of countries and the way in which they are likely to evolve; identify and assess the possible impact of the Third World on existing international political and economic structures; identify what Australian national interests are, or are likely to be, affected by its relations with the Third World and to analyse the problems these relations present or are likely to present; and identify and assess the policy options available to Australia in relation to the Third

World and, taking account of Australian interests and commitments, to formulate appropriate policy recommendations.

The Committee presented its report to me earlier this year. It has since been considered by Cabinet and is now being put to detailed study. Cabinet also decided that the report should be tabled in Parliament and made available to the Australian public. In tabling it I would like to congratulate and thank Professor Harries and the Committee for the work they have done. I believe that they have produced an outstanding report which is a major contribution to the discussion of Australia’s foreign policy. They were set a most formidable task, with very broad terms of reference. In a remarkably short period they produced a wide-ranging, comprehensive document on vital aspects of Australia’s foreign relationships. It identifies and offers informed and considered views on a range of issues, problems and opportunities which will be central to Australia’s foreign policy in the 1980s. It provides a conceptual framework which draws together and relates diverse aspects of that policy, aspects which, up to now, have usually been dealt with separately.

So far as I know, no other developed country has available to it such a detailed study of its over-all relations with the Third World. I believe it will be an essential source of analysis, ideas and guidelines in the coming decade. As a public document it can also do one other thing which I regard as of the utmost importance: It can help raise public awareness of the challenges facing us and generate public discussion and debate on our foreign relations. This, as the report itself emphasises, is urgently needed. If they are to be successfully implemented, the decisions we face as a nation- particularly in relation to the industrial transformation of the West Pacificcannot be made by government alone; they will have to be made by the community as a whole and it is essential that they be made in an informed and considered way.

The report provides essential information. It also provides thoughtful, informed and some very trenchant views on the policy options available to Australia on crucial matters: How we should adjust to the rapid economic growth now taking place to our north; how we should conduct our relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations; how far our interests coincide with general Western interests in relation to the Third World; what our posture should be in the United Nations and other international forums; what principles should inform our policies on such matters as aid, human rights, immigration and refugees.

Given the wide range of conclusions and recommendations on inherently contentious issues contained in the report, it is unlikely that anyone will be in total agreement with what it has to say. That is as it should be. Only an anodyne document would receive universal consent. What this report requires is not uncritical endorsement and acceptance, but serious consideration and discussion, both by the Government and by the public. It is not about esoteric matters of concern only to foreign policy professionals. It identifies challenges and opportunities of concern to every Australian citizen. It discusses in very cogent terms the options facing us as a nation, matters on which we will have to make decisions sooner rather than later. Again, I thank the Committee on behalf of the Government and strongly commend the report to honourable members and to the Australian public.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith -by leave- The Opposition welcomes the tabling of the report. We always support the presentation of studies of this kind and the encouragement of debate. The report tells us quite a lot about the capacity of the Government’s advisers to marshal information and arguments. In that context, we understand that the Office of National Assessments presented to the Government its first assessment of Australia’s strategic outlook. It would be of considerable national benefit for a version of the strategic outlook to be available for public discussion. However, we commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock · Kingsford

for tabling the report. It is, in many ways, a strategic outlook for Australia. The report not only seeks to describe the Third World, its driving forces and its divisions but also seeks to set out Australia’s place in the world as a preliminary to its policy judgments. I commend Mr Jack Smith, formerly an officer of the Embassy in Washington- I understand that he is now retired- and a member of the Committee, for his brief but persuasive dissenting comment urging us to see ourselves first as Australians.

Without simply taking up Mr Smith’s point or wanting to put any partisan label on it, it is consistent with my concerns about the development of the report. There is an uncertainty about it. It moves from talking about the need for new approaches on the basis of national interest to old Cold War concepts. Also evident is the unflinching Treasury line on economic issues. It is therefore disappointing, though not unexpected, that propositions in the economic area are put forward without alternatives being similarly clearly expressed. The report is correct in its focus on the importance of South East Asia to Australia but it is somewhat shallow in its analysis of prospective events in the region. A related shortcoming is the approach it takes to human rights issues. Whereas the report in various places urges us not to be patronising and claims, in referring to human rights, that we should not impose our democratic values on other countries, the fact is that it rather patronisingly suggests that we should not expect our neighbours to respect human dignity.

Without wishing to detract from other more professional areas of the text, I suggest that the energy section is somewhat amateur and pretentious. On a technical level, it confuses liquid natural gas with liquid petroleum gas. At the policy level it suggests that we have an expertise to offer in the energy policy area. The fact is that there are not even any staff in the Energy Policy Division of the Department of National Development, let alone a policy. Some insight into the Committee’s problems in approaching this subject is found in the list of interactions between Australia and the Third World as outlined in the report. For example, are we to believe a statement that the decision to hasten independence in Papua New Guinea occurred in the 1960s? I suggest that it occurred somewhat later than that. There is no reference to the problems that the Labor Opposition faced at the time it spoke about independence in 1970. Are we to believe that significant modification to immigration policy could occur only some time in 1966? We suggest that a fundamental change occurred in 1973. So, we can talk about details of the report, but we want to talk about some of the general matters, for example, the question of differences with our neighbours.

We had a succession of Foreign Ministers- I need not name them- and a succession of Prime Ministers- I need not name them either- who travelled to Asia and each time returned home to proclaim a new era of friendship in relations with neighbouring developing countries. These claims, however, had no more substance than the repetitive claims of trade success made by the present Government. A problem is perceived, and an imagination or self-deception expects that it can be resolved by saying in a Press briefing that it has been resolved. Yet throughout the whole of this period there was no basic departure from the critical decision of the Menzies era that Australia should no longer pursue a policy in Asia independent of that of the United States.

So, to the extent that we had relations with the Third World in the late1950s and the1960s, our Government reacted against their emergence. It reacted against the non-aligned movement and the Afro-Asian movement. The fundamental moral, political and strategic confusion of that action was to rebound into our own society, particularly in the problems of this country and the constitutional crisis of1 975. The Labor era was a profound reaction against that discredited approach to the Third World. For the first time Australia indicated that it was ready to deal with the non-aligned and with Asia and Africa on their own terms, without racial discrimination in immigration policy and without overriding military preoccupation.

At that time, important changes began to become more evident in the Third World. The developing countries could increasingly be seen, and increasingly see themselves, as belonging to these different classes: The least developed, lacking basic resources, skills and infrastructure, for whom development might be totally illusory; the fast developers or ‘newly industrialising countries’, particularly in Asia, anxious to retain the political and trade advantages of developing country status, but moving fast in other respects to distance themselves from other developing countries; the countries of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the first among poorer countries to realise their power over a cheap energy resource; or the vast majority of developing countries for whom the burden of popular aspirations and the difficulties of even development were proving increasingly difficult, leading to major problems of government and social order in some cases.

The major test for this report, as for the Fraser Government, is in its indication of appropriate strategies for Australia in this field. Let us look first at the approach of the Fraser Government. Let me take two examples: Trade and the South Pacific- trade because it is so dear to the Prime Minister, and relations with the South Pacific because of the Foreign Minister’s pride in them. The Government’s trade strategy is one of confusion of purpose other than protection of farming interests. Australia has taken a new role among developed countries in its attacks on other developed countries. Somewhere in this has been the hope of using the power of the Third World as a lever to assist Australian agricultural trade. Mixed with that has been the megalomania found among some bullying personalities to arouse and lead a rabble for whatever cause. In May the Prime Minister went to Manila, to the Fifth United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, to attack protectionism, and then came home and put a 2 per cent duty on all Australian imports. He went to this ASEAN capital to claim his title when he had presided over the most rapid decline in our relations with ASEAN.

The Foreign Minister is proud of his aid program in the South Pacific. That program was embarked on in 1976, apparently to counter Soviet influence. The aid is appreciated in the South Pacific; but the motive is considered naive. Now the Government is confronted by pressure from some countries in the region to establish an equivalent of the Lome Convention for Pacific countries’ access to Australia and New Zealand. The Minister has not mentioned this. The Government is also confronted by the desire of Tasmania to accept a Soviet fishing fleet in Hobart. This is a very sensible proposal for Tasmania, but one must wonder what the Foreign Minister thinks of that, particularly in view of his stance in the Pacific.

We need practical solutions to practical problems. Nowhere is this more evident than in our relations with immediate neighbours in South East Asia. Instead, the Government’s approach to South East Asia is made up of unrelated elements- the irrelevant platitudes and political wishful thinking of Department of Foreign Affairs; the simple-minded free trade approach of Treasury- which I can understand would be accepted if our Treasury advisers were paid the same salary on a world parity basis- and the heavy-footed approach of the Department of Transport. I predict that our relations with ASEAN countries will become more difficult and more complex over the next decade, and we cannot gloss over the problems. The report does address itself to these and other political problems. It emphasises the need for economic cooperation with ASEAN countries and for Australia to hasten change in its industrial structure. However, no reference whatsoever is made to employment. We accept the need for political and economic co-operation with ASEAN countries, but economic co-operation has no value if it succeeds only in destroying Australian industry and lining the pockets of an avaricious and temporary monopolist who might exist in several other countries.

Similarly, political co-operation can be meaningful only to the extent that we see that a government has political support and durability. Does the Foreign Minister consider that economic co-operation with the Philippines will produce stability and growth in that country? If Australia were that significant to the economy of the Philippines, then perhaps as much might be achieved by withholding economic co-operation. This also raises the pious argument in the report that we should not allow human rights to be a factor in our relations. In response to that I have emphasised several aspects; but let me now ask: Is the Committee trying to say that there is no concern in the Philippines about human rights? The report says:

We live on the rim of a region where democracy is a new idea whose hour had not yet come, where at best it is one aspiration among a host of others no less urgent.

This is where the report is at its worst- in its failure to engage adequately the real political and human problems involved on its way to discussing economic co-operation with ASEAN countries, and the economic section is thus modernised from the outset. There is nothing in the report to reflect the submission of the Australian Freedom From Hunger Campaign to the Committee. The Australian Freedom From Hunger Campaign argued that the export of manufacturing jobs from developed to developing countries had a weakening effect. New technology was used, with less employment benefit. Local income was often minimised. Moreover, the market was depressed because of the burden of loss of income in developed countries.

Let us face the fact that we are not creating jobs fast enough, and the next several years will see many more jobs in the service sector vanish. The report does not look at the Australian interest in employment. The report does talk in simple-minded terms about protectionism and free trade, and it opts for the latter. That kind of simple thinking leads to categorisation of those of us who want to retain some industry in Australia as protectionist, anti-trade, unneighbourly, or anti-ASEAN. This is absurd. We have some right to our industries, and they can be efficient. With a proper basis for planning, we can allow access- and there is already a very high level of access to textile and clothing- while keeping the Australian industry alive. The Committee notes that Australia is not a major market for ASEAN in these products but is important at the margin; indeed it is at the margin.

The report notes resistance to direct foreign capital investment by developing countries, but makes a somewhat naive comment that Australians know the virtues of such investment. Quite obviously, however, foreign investment in Australia in the nineteenth century, and until recently in the twentieth century, was more stable and more clearly Australian managed, and provided more direct benefits to Australia, including employment, than does most modern transnational investment, especially in developing countries. There is a regrettable pattern of capitalseeking, rapid return, minimal national constraints and minimum rights for as few local employees as possible. The acceptance of some of the projects going to some developing countries would seem to suggest not the basis for a new international economic order but an identity of interest between foreign corporate and national politics. They are leaks in preventing the emergence of any new national economic order in those places.

The report sensibly proposes a long term objective that aid to Papua-New Guinea be scaled down, but the Opposition rejects the report’s projection of great power politics as a primary determinant of Australian policy in the Pacific. The report reflects a warped approach to Australian interests in the Pacific and that, by itself, can be damaging to Australian interests in the Pacific. Tragically, however, this seems to reflect Government policy. Mr Smith’s dissenting view is again relevant. We commend the report however for its emphasis on Australia’s potential to assist in agricultural research in the developing world and for its emphasis on Australia as a supplier of food. Elsewhere in the report, in relation to the United Nations, the question is asked whether we should seek to have a major United Nations body located in Australia. It may be far more relevant to establish, in association with others, a major facility to co-ordinate rural research relating to developing countries. This could bring in sociopolitical and economic studies as well.

The report notes the information and cultural gulf between us and our neighbours. It notes that foreign students in Australia help bridge the gap. The Opposition makes the point that, in the light of those remarks, the Government should drop its tax on overseas students. I have made these critical points by way of opening the debate. The paper does have shortcomings, not the least because of the balance of views represented on the Committee. Nevertheless, I do commend the Minister for Foreign Affairs for tabling the report and I hope that further discussion on the paper can be stimulated by its distribution.

page 1193

QUESTION

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Mr SINCLAIR:
Leader of the House · New England · NCP/NP

– by leave- I move:

The Committee of Privileges, when undertaking its present inquiry, may wish to have the power granted by the motion and, in accordance with practice, the motion is proposed for the concurrence of the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1194

HOUSING AND LAND PRICES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

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

The failure of the Australian Government to introduce policies to effectively assist young home makers offset rising prices of housing and land.

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 UREN:
Reid

-The most important thing after the security of having a job is the security of having a home. This Government is responsible for making people insecure both where they work and where they live. On average, there have been almost 200 jobs lost every day since this Government came to office and there have been on average about 100 inquiries by homeless people every day seeking emergency accommodation. This Government has not only failed to introduce policies to provide employment but also has totally neglected the problems faced by the homeless unemployed. Let us look further than the immediate needs for welfare housing which this Government has neglected and see what has happened even with those presently employed on low and middle incomes, and particularly those young couples or young people seeking their first home. The Government in its1979-80 Budget has provided only one-third of the funds for housing that were provided by the Australian Labor Party Government in 1974-75. When one cuts back so savagely on such an essential provision as housing, one must expect very drastic consequences. These are occurring in the community at this time under this Administration.

The reduced funds mean that fewer new Government dwellings are being built. In 1976-77 there were 13,000 public housing commencements but only 10,900 in 1977-78. In 1978-79 the estimate is down to about 6,000 and with due respect to the present policies of this Government, the Opposition expects that in the coming year that figure probably will be halved again. Yet, even on this Government’s conservative estimate, there are over 70,000 families on the waiting lists for public housing. 1 believe the figure is much higher but it has been manipulated by this Government and by other governments. This Government has encouraged the States to sell off public housing. One-fifth of all payments advanced under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement is required to assist home ownership. We will look in a moment at what is happening in the broader terms of home ownership. But let us understand that the decline in public housing activity is causing a shortage of accommodation that is tending to inflate housing prices on the private market. It is aggravating the crisis in the building industry where over 71 ,000 jobs have been lost since May 1975. The building industry is suffering a reduced capacity as a consequence. Those staying in the home building business are tending to push up their prices in order to survive.

The price index of materials used in home building has risen by 10.5 per cent over the year to August 1979. These figures were released today. Last year that price rose by only 5.3 per cent for the same period, so one can see the inflationary spurt that is going on under this Government. The Government is causing the inflationary spurt due to its policy. That spurt will increase particularly because of the way in which the Government is using its taxation policy with regard to the petroleum industry. All of those prices are being reflected in the building industry because of tremendous inflationary pressure. This is happening not only in the building industry but also, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know yourself, in the rural sector. You know how it is affecting the farmers in your electorate. The weighted value per square metre of a private contract-built home increased from $196 in 1976-77 to $209 in 1977-78 and is continuing upwards. It would be very rare today to have an average house built for less than $22,000, not including land. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the median sale prices for houses in the six capital cities.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr UREN:

– Thank you. Let us look at the situation in Sydney. According to the table I have incorporated, based on the figures provided by the July 1979 survey of housing prices conducted by the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the median price of established houses in Sydney was $62,200. In July 1978 the median price was $47,700. One year later it had risen to $62,200. That is a rise of $14,500 or 30 per cent in one year. I know that I am talking only about Sydney, but in this whole question of the house building sector the fact is that when inflationary pressures commence and speculation occurs it always starts off in a certain centre first. Speculation occurred first in Sydney and pretty soon we started to get indications of it in Melbourne as well. I will give some details about that later. To prove my point, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table showing the changes in the average price of houses and flats in Sydney between June 1978 and June 1979. The table is based on a survey taken by the New South Wales Valuer-General ‘s Department.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. From this table we can see that housing prices in Sydney have risen by up to 35 per cent in the last year. As I said earlier, I will give evidence to show how prices are also starting to move in Melbourne particularly and also in Perth. We can also see that a young couple wanting to buy their first home and seeking to qualify for the full home savings grant are virtually restricted to the suburbs of Sydney which are located not less than 30 kilometres from the Sydney General Post Office. Travelling time from those suburbs to work in the city is in the vicinity of one and half to two hours each way. The houses which are available at prices of less than $35,000 are most often not close to public transport. In many cases one has to travel two, three or four miles from the railway station even when living as far out as 30 kilometres from the GPO. They are in areas which lack essential community services, cultural facilities, trees, parks, gardens and every gentle way of living. They are areas where very few jobs are available. Of course, people are being forced to travel in because of the lack of correct urban planning by this Government. At least we tried to alter this pattern when we were in government but under this Government the position has been reversed.

If a young couple wants to buy a new home it will cost them at least $15,000 for a block of land and around $22,000 for a house. That makes a total of something like $37,000, which puts them outside the maximum assistance which is available under this Government’s home savings grant scheme. The young couple would have to have an income of $220 a week to secure a loan of $25,000 repayable over 25 years even at the lowest interest rate of 9.5 per cent, which they would be lucky to get. Generally, the loans are repayable at an interest rate of 10.5 per cent to 1 1 per cent. On this basis it would take a couple at least four years to save the deposit to buy a $35,000 home, by which time the same home would probably cost something like $45,000 because of inflationary pressures and because of the burden of the policies of this Government. Again to prove my point, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table prepared by the Parliamentary Library Research Service. It shows the estimates of the deposit gap for the five capital cities for a person on average weekly earnings seeking to buy an established home at the median price in June 1 979.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. Prices have skyrocketed even since the time of the preparation of this table, which was before the latest figures were released in Sydney. The average cost of a home in Sydney is listed at $58,900, in Melbourne at $47,500 and in Perth at $41,300. We can see the real pressure which is being exerted in the field of housing under this Government. The situation in Sydney is that after paying a 10 per cent deposit to exchange contracts, the buyer would require a loan of something like $53,000. But the borrowing limit whereby only 25 per cent of gross income can be allowed for loan repayments is $26,000. The deposit gap, therefore, is something like $27,000; that is, the buyer has to find or save more money than a bank or a building society will lend him. The building societies will demand that at least 10 per cent of the total purchase price be available as a deposit. The bank will demand 25 per cent. That means at least four years of saving, but with house prices rising by at least 20 per cent a year, the home seeker is waging a losing battle against the inflationary policies of this Government. If the buyer has saved no more than the initial deposit of 10 per cent, he or she will need more than double the average weekly earnings. In reality, a single income family is out of the race to buy a home under the present circumstances. The only way a young couple can get a home today is by having two incomes, if they can get jobs under the present circumstances.

In reality, the maximum home savings grant of $2,000 is nowhere near adequate for helping people into housing. It does not bridge the deposit gap. By the time a purchaser becomes eligible to receive it, inflation has made it meaningless. By the time it is received- nine months after it is approved- it is too late for the purchase. Not all banks and building societies accept the approval letter from the Commonwealth Government in assessing eligibility for a loan. Some of them see it as extra money for payment of the outrageous legal costs or for buying extra furniture or whatever a couple might seek to have in their home. The home savings grant does not help borrowers in the hardest early years of their loan repayments. They are trying to get their feet on the rungs in the first years. They are the difficult years. I have been trying to get this Government to adopt the policy of helping people in the first three to five years of repaying a loan. People’s incomes, as they are being reduced in real terms through the wages and taxation policies of this Government, are just not sufficient to bear the repayments through the early years. This difficulty is worsened by the way lenders respond to high levels of inflation. They offer loans under the conventional credit foncier system and increase nominal rates of interest. Less than one-third of wage earners have incomes large enough to service the average mortgage.

The response of this Government to the plight of young people seeking to buy a home has been totally inadequate. It has caused the dreams of many to be shattered. It has increased the anxiety and insecurity of people who cannot be sure that they will keep jobs which will allow them to obtain a home. This Government has failed to introduce policies to prevent the rising costs of land and housing. It has preferred for ideological reasons to let market forces have their way. Those market forces have a clear tendency to promote inequality. Access to home ownership is now becoming a privelege for those who have stable and relatively high incomes or at least to those families which have two medium incomes.

In the area of housing, as in every other area affecting people’s living standards, this Government is assisting a massive transfer of wealth away from the needy in favour of the rich. There is a clear need for the Government to intervene to prevent speculation in land and housing which not only brings on inflation but also prevents rational and humane planning of the areas where people live. This Government has reduced the role of public housing which at the very least provides some balance in the market. It has undermined the role of the land commissions which the Labor Government set up and which, at least in New South Wales and South Australia, are having some effect in challenging the spiralling land prices. They are building up land banks so that the land can be sensibly allocated according to need and so that prices can be contained at reasonable levels. It has failed to give any real encouragement to the building industry to service land so that inflation will not continue.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

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

– I am staggered that the Opposition should seek to attack this Government on its record on housing costs. No government has taken a more rigourous and careful approach to home ownership and housing costs than this Government. The Opposition and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) are leading with their chins whenever they raise in this House the question of inflation; their record on the inflation front was so deplorable. I believe that they underrate the intelligence of the ordinary Australian people, the Australian public, when they try to pretend that they have all the answers, that they can solve all the problems of inflation, when obviously from their own record they cannot. The people are not fools. The people do remember. They can remember back to four and five years ago when the Labor Party obviously failed totally in its attempts to control inflation in this country. Rather than inhibit price increases, it positively encouraged the inflationary spiral and the price explosion which ripped the Australian economy apart and destroyed with it the hopes and the aspirations of countless numbers of young Australians who were so eager at that time to own their own homes.

I want to mention a few aspects of the record of the Labor Party when it was in office because it did great harm to the interests of housing in Australia and the interest of the housing industry in particular. That period from 1972 to 1975 was one of great instability and great uncertainty for the housing industry. The policies adopted by the Government in those days, those dark days, caused peaks and troughs which must be avoided if we are to assist housing in Australia. There were periods of over-building and they strained the resources of the housing industry. When this sort of over-building occurs, obviously and inevitably there has to be a crash. The crash came. I remind the House that that period from 1972 to 1975 was a period of great crisis for home owners in Australia and for the housing industry. Inflation ran wild. Inflation of land costs and house costs exploded. It was much higher in those days than the general consumer price index figures.

One figure that I would like to quote is that relating to the house building material cost increase for the 12 months to the end of January 1975. The increase was 22.9 per cent for that one year. Compare that figure with the figure for the period to the end of July of this year when it was down to 9.6 per cent. In this latest financial year it was half what it was in one of those periods during the Labor reign. I remind honourable members that interest rates soared under Labor. They rose by three per cent and more between 1972 and 1974. What a disaster that was for so many young people who were trying to buy their own homes. Month after month they received notices from the lending institutions from which they had obtained their loans to the effect that there had been a further increase in interest rates. That meant further increases in the instalments that these people had to pay. It also meant, of course, that many of them could not continue to pay the instalments on their homes and remain in them. I ask honourable members to look at that record and compare it with the record of the present Government.

During the period of the present Government we have had a very static situation in interest rates. Generally they have remained stable since the beginning of 1 976. In fact, in some areas they have moderated. That is a very significant achievement indeed for this Government. I ask honourable members to look at one of the programs that this Government or one of its predecessors initiated some years ago, the Home Savings Grant scheme. What happened to that during the period of the Labor Government? It was abolished. That was a very great disappointment to so many young families who were seeking the kind of assistance provided by that scheme to enable them to put a deposit on a house, to get into a house of their own. How hypocritical it is for honourable members opposite now to criticise certain aspects of the scheme that the Government now is administering to help those people. At present this Government is providing a maximum grant of $2,000. It is a substantial help to young people who want to buy a house of their own. We intend to continue to maintain that scheme. We see it as an important scheme. It is an important means of assisting young people who want to buy their own homes. I am not sure, but I do not believe that there was any decision made at the recent Adelaide conference of the Australian Labor Party to the effect that it would bring back the Home Savings Grant scheme. Perhaps I can be corrected by honourable members opposite if I am wrong.

I now ask honourable members to consider public housing. What a mess that was during Labor’s period of office. Massive amounts of money were spent but so much was wasted. We had examples of very, very poor administration. The States had so much money to spend that they did not know what to do with it. It was coming out of their ears. Some of the States spent a massive amount of money buying up huge tracts of land, much more than was needed to satisfy the immediate needs of the people and the families who were seeking public housing. In one particular case, the Tasmanian housing authority bought land sufficient for 50 years supply at the current rate of commencements. That indicated that too much money was available and it was being wasted. They were the sorts of things that were happening during the period of office of the Labor Government.

In the last Budget brought down by the Labor Government it realised its previous stupidity and decided to cut back expenditure significantly. That is something that is sometimes forgotten by those sitting opposite when commenting on public housing. Generally, the policies of the Labor Government were totally haphazard and did nothing to assist young home buyers in Australia and nothing to assist the industry to produce houses for young families or any family who wanted to get into a house. On the other hand the present Government has adopted what I believe to be very sensible policies which are working very well. The industry can now plan ahead. It knows where it is going and families wanting to buy a house know where they are going. Interest rates are stable and that is a very important component of the cost of housing. That is, as I said before, a very significant achievement. Commencements basically are sufficient to meet the present demand for housing in Australia and I believe, in time, that there will be a gradual improvement in the number of commencements.

On Saturday, in South Australia, we saw a Labor Government and its housing policies totally rejected by the people of that State. I am not surprised at the election result. It was a resounding victory by the Liberal Party and, in particular, the Liberal Party in South Australia. The Labor Government in that State obviously failed in its housing policies. It failed to give encouragement to young people. If failed to provide incentives for people to go out and seek finance in the private area so that they could purchase a house privately. There was far too much concern and concentration on public housing in South Australia. Dr Tonkin and his Liberal Government, particularly his housing Minister, appointed today, are determined to reinvigorate the housing sector in South Australia and to give due attention and assistance to people who want to buy their own homes. I find the housing policies for South Australia to be very impressive indeed and I think that the people there will see a very significant improvement in the assistance provided by the Government to enable them to go out and purchase a home of their own. Let us not forget that the great aspiration of most Australian people is to have the satisfaction and the security of their own home.

The South Australian Government will ensure an improvement in the availability of housing finance, particularly in the private sector. It will provide incentives for people purchasing a home and offer rebates of stamp duty on the purchase of a first home, which is a very significant step forward. It will abolish land tax on the principle place of residence and introduce legislation in support of the home owners protection schemes developed by the building industry. All of these are very important initiatives indeed. Whereas we have seen a very, very flat situation for housing in South Australia, I believe that now we will see a great deal of improvement in that State. The people will see that they will achieve a great deal as a result of the support which they have given to the Liberal Party in that State.

A great deal has been done for housing by this Government. We are now seeing the rate of commencements rise. These rose by 1 1 per cent in the second half of 1978-79. We expect commencements in 1979-80 to be between 117,000 and 122,000, according to the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry. There again we have seen a gradual improvement. Approvals for housing construction rose by three per cent during 1978-79. Private dwelling approvals were up six per cent in 1978-79. Total approvals were five per cent higher in the June quarter of 1979 than in the March quarter of 1979 and 15 per cent higher for June quarter 1979 than for June quarter 1978. This again is further evidence of a gradual improvement in the number of approvals for houses in Australia. Significant achievements have been made on the finance front. There has been a great improvement in the total flow of housing finance from the major lending institutions throughout Australia. Approvals in the June quarter were 1 3.2 per cent higher than approvals for the corresponding period in 1978.

Mr Uren:

– What about the cost of building materials?

Mr GROOM:

– Lending by banks and permanent building societies in 1978-79 was 21 per cent higher than that for the previous financial year. As I have said, those improvements are very substantial indeed. The honourable member for Reid mentioned the cost of building materials. It is true that the cost of house building material increased by 1.4 per cent in the month of August this year and that the cost of other building material increased by 1.2 per cent. The Government is concerned, as part of its genuine and real concern for the people wanting to buy their own homes, about the recent increases in the prices of materials for housing and nonresidential buildings. It recognises that the increases are due at least partially to an adjustment from the low levels which have existed in recent months and that further marginal increases can be expected in the coming months. But increases of even 10 per cent and 1 1 per cent must be viewed in the context of the record of the Labor Government because they are less than half -

Mr Uren:
Mr GROOM:

– The honourable member for Reid smiles and chuckles to himself, but they are less than half of the rate of inflation that his Government achieved through its policies in 1974 and 1975.

Mr Uren:

– That is rubbish.

Mr GROOM:

-The record is there. If the honourable member checks on the figures for the Australian Bureau of Statistics he will see that it is not rubbish, that it is perfectly correct. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which supports the comments I have just made on house prices.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr GROOM:

-By way of the recent Budget the Government has redoubled its efforts to contain the inflationary pressures which are again on the increase in most Western countries. It is not easy to do that. I am sure the honourable member for Reid would agree with that. But our record speaks for itself. It is a very fine record indeed and one of which this Government is particularly proud.

One subject I will briefly mention- I do not have very much time left- is the sub-contract system. If, as members of this Parliament, we are concerned about housing costs we should be very much concerned about the attack that is now taking place on the sub-contract system in Australia among elements of the union movement. Honourable members would recognise that this system has been an important factor in maintaining and retaining a reasonable level of house prices within Australia. It is a system which has stood the test of time and kept house prices down. It is a system which is based on individual effort, initiative and personal endeavour. If we compare Australia’s productivity in the housing industry with that of other countries, especially European, we will see that Australia’s productivity has been much higher.

I believe that that is because we use the subcontract system. I see great dangers for the industry and home buyers if we lose the sub-contract system. House prices would inevitably increase. Fewer houses would be built. Employment within the industry would be affected. It would drop and become more unstable. The attack on the sub-contract system which is under way at present in a number of States, especially New South Wales, is something that I think should be viewed with great concern and alarm. The Government believes in the sub-contract system and will do all it can to support its continuation. The debate on this matter has shown that the Australian Labor Party has failed to learn the lessons of its own mistakes. Nothing has changed. It wants to spend more and more money to solve all of the problems that exist. It has failed to recognise that the single most important contribution that the Commonwealth can make to lowering housing costs is to provide a stable economic climate and the incentive to invest. That is what we are doing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:

Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

-During this Government’s term of office we have seen a massive redistribution of income occurring in Australian society. The redistribution has been not only of the money incomes of people but also of their real incomes, that is, their relative access to goods and services. The subject of this debate is housing. The debate is essentially about differential access to housing. Who gets housing under this Government’s policies compared, if you like, with the Labor Government’s policies.

The Government has been concerned in this area as in other important areas of potential redistribution, such as education, health and welfare, on the one hand to reduce the total volume of funds available and on the other to seek to ensure that the money that is spent is spent basically on behalf of its natural constituency, that is, on behalf of the better off, the more affluent or, if you like, the middle class. This class bias of the Government’s policy is evident throughout its spending priorities. However, it is no more evident in any other area than in the area of housing.

The Government has been transferring health costs from the public sector to the private sector. Rather than require the affluent to pay for health costs, the Government has sought to ensure as far as possible that the poor pay for their health needs and the sick pay for the sick. Similarly with education it has sought to ensure, by transferring funds from public schools to private schools, the reintroduction of the educational inequality which was marked in so many conservative Budgets before the Australian Labor Party came to power in 1972. In the area of housing the Government is seeking unashamedly to do two things. Firstly, it is seeking to reduce government expenditure on housing, particularly Commonwealth Government expenditure. It wants primarily to shift responsibility from the Commonwealth Government to the States and then to put pressure on the States to shift the burden of expenditure from the State governments to the individual. Secondly, it wants to ensure that the housing dollar is spent more on the affluent and less on the poor and /or the working people of this nation.

The evidence with respect to my first proposition- that is, that the Government is seeking to reduce Government spending on housing- is absolutely undeniable. Whilst spending on tax concessions for industry has quadrupled since this Government has been in office, spending on housing has been drastically reduced. Housing outlays have been reduced from 3.9 per cent of total outlays in 1974-75 to 1.1 per cent in 1979-80. In 1 979-80 government housing outlays will make up less than one-third of the 1974-75 spending on housing. Between 1978-79 and 1979-80 housing outlays will fall by 13.4 per cent in real terms. These facts are undeniable. It is undeniable that twice as much public housing was being constructed in this country when the Labor Party was in office in 1975 compared with what will be constructed in the current year. The effects of these developments on the housing industry as such are noted. One does not need to quote the building unions with respect to the impact of the policies of this Government, particularly its most recent Budget, on housing as it is constructed in this country. The Master Builders Association in Victoria, in its Building Comment said:

Housing policy has always been a politically sensitive area. Despite the political rhetoric, the net effect of the Budget will not be to provide a direct stimulus to the housing sector.

It followed with a detailed examination of what in fact has occurred in terms of this Budget, in terms of the depressing activity within the housing area and, as the honourable member for Reid has pointed out, in terms of denying real access to new housing for young Australians. However, the concern in this debate is not directed simply to the housing industry and the employment implications of the Budget with respect to housing. For example, the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry, in its most recent report, suggested that the industry was in very poor shape indeed. It is certainly in far worse shape than it was in at any time that the Labor Party was in power. Indeed, it seems to me that the Government’s references to what may or may not have happened four years ago will become more and more hollow as the implications of the Budget not only bite into the work force but also bite into the opportunity for people to get access to housing. Those opportunities are being diminished year by year under this Government. As the honourable member for Reid has pointed out, a continuing and in some States rapid increase is occurring in the price of housing. These developments have been summarised. However, let me emphasise that at a time when the Government is seeking to reduce wage and salary incomes the price of housing is in fact rising rapidly. We are not in a situation in which there has been any improvement over the past four years in wage and salary incomes. In fact, we have been through four years in which the real incomes of people have been steadily reduced. We have been through a period in which unemployment has doubled. In that situation, we have the position where more and more people are dependent on pensions and social service benefits. That is occurring at a time when the real incomes of more and more people are being reduced. The Government in fact is reducing access to housing. At the very time when public housing is most needed- in a recessionary period- the Government is seeking to reduce access to housing.

That is the sort of harshness to which we seek to draw attention in today’s debate. People are finding the situation difficult not simply because the price of housing is escalating very rapidly. The honourable member for Reid pointed not to historic figures but to current figures in relation to Sydney, for example, where the average price of a house has now reached $62,000. That is not the situation in Adelaide where the average price of a house is $34,000, despite the terrors of a Labor government. In Sydney the deposit gap is $27,000 compared with Adelaide where the deposit gap is approximately $5,000 or $5,500. The reality is that the Labor Government in South Australia, which had a much longer period in which to settle in its Land Commission, achieved the situation where the price of housingcertainly the price of the house-land package- is competitive with that- of anywhere else in Australia. That is undeniably true, and it is undeniably related to the comprehensive Labor Government policies pursued in co-operation by Federal and State governments.

This Government has no such policies. It commissioned an inquiry into housing costs. In its report the inquiry made a whole series of recommendations in relation to what could be done about housing costs. Four years after this Government came to power we find that the average cost of housing has risen to almost $50,000 in Victoria or $60,000-odd in New South Wales. The Government has not done a thing about that situation. It has not done a thing because housing is not essentially a priority of this Government. This Government likes very much to engage in rhetoric about home ownership. But when it gets down to doing something to help people to own their own homes, what does it do? It does the sort of thing it did last year when the homes savings grant scheme was virtually eliminated. There just was not any assistance available to any new home purchasers in Australia in the year 1 978-79. What kind of assistance was available under the scheme anyway? With the average price of a house being between $50,000 and $60,000, the assistance provided amounted to $2,000. That is quite miniscule assistance; it is not strategic assistance at all.

Let us look at what the Government has been doing with respect to people who are in public housing but who want to get out of it. The Government has introduced this notion of escalating interest rates. To someone buying a pretty ordinary house at Broadmeadows, escalating interest rates mean that he can finish up paying up to $130,000- this includes people in the electorate of the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson)- in capital and interest repayments to buy a housing commission home which originally was intended simply to provide temporary accommodation for low income people while they were getting themselves established. So the option of home ownership for lower income people in public housing has been effectively halted by this Government. One should talk about the price of renting a house. There has been a massive increase m rentals. Fifty per cent of those people renting public housing in Victoria are in arrears because of this Government’s policies.

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

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-Let us compare the cost of housing today with the cost of housing in 1965-66. In 1965-66 it took a person on average weekly earnings 1.98 years of income to buy a house in Sydney. In 1977-78 it took such a person exactly 1.87 years of his income to buy a house. Many of the gains that have been made to young people in relation to the cost of housing in Australia have been made by the current Government. Let us look at the level of housing activity in Australia today. For instance, the level of lending by savings banks is up by 15 per cent on that of last year, while the level of lending by trading banks is up by 1 1 percent on that of last year. Despite the drop in lending by permanent building societies, the total contribution of funds available for home buyers was up by a total of 10 per cent right across Australia for the year 1978-79.

So, despite inflation running at 8.8 per cent, the lowest that we have had in Australia for many years, and the lowest interest rates that we have had for many years, the Australian building industry- Australian home builders- is receiving a total increase of 10 per cent in the money available to build houses in Australia. Apart from that, the effects of this Government’s policy on the building industry at large and on employment are evident. There has been an increase in employment in the building industry of 4 per cent in one year. In the year 1978-79-1 know that the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) is most interested in this matterthe level of employment in the building industry rose by 4 per cent. That represents a positive growth for young men seeking apprenticeships and also for tradesmen who wish to apply their skills to the industry.

Let us look at the figures brought forward by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). They show some interesting features. If we take one month alone- the month of August- we see that the cost of materials for the building industry increased Australia-wide by 1.4 per cent over the previous month. Let us look at the increase in the cost of building materials for a full year. In the year 1976-77- that is the year we took overthe cost of building materials increased by 1 1.9 per cent. That compares with an increase of 8.2 per cent in 1977-78. For the last financial year the increase was only 6.4 per cent. So in two years we more than halved the increase in the cost of building materials. That is the record of this Government.

The honourable member for Reid picked one month and used it as the basis for bringing forward for debate a matter of public importance. He says: ‘The country is in a shambles. People cannot buy houses’. The honourable member for Reid should look at our consistent record of growth, of availability of funds, of reduced interest rates and of reduced costs of materials. I do not know why he has brought forward this matter today. If there were the possibility of a continuation of increases in the cost of materials to the building industry, I am sure that the policies of this Government, as enunciated in the Budget, will restrain those factors. Our record stands for all to see. Our record shows that we have positively reduced costs from a record high of 24 per cent in 1974-75. That is the record of the Labor Government. Opposition members come into this chamber and say: ‘The situation is terrible. Your last yearly record shows that the cost of building materials in the home building industry went up by 6.4 per cent. What a record ! ‘ It is a fine record compared with the disastrous 24 per cent per annum increase in the cost of building materials during the Labor period.

The cost of building materials this month increased by 10.4 per cent compared with the cost in the same month last year. If we go back a month, we find that the increase is 9.5 per cent. If we go back another month, the increase is 8 per cent. An examination of the figures shows that the percentage increases are up and down from month to month. I can spot the figures for some months which the honourable member for Reid did not mention when speaking to his matter of public importance. He failed to mention that in April the monthly increase was as great as that for this month. We see that the figure for the next month is down again. So I do not know why the honourable member for Reid is wasting his time complaining in this House about the cost of materials in the building industry simply because the statistician brought out some figures today.

Let us look at the manufacturing industry. There has been some increase in the cost of manufactured goods. The increase in the cost of materials in the building industry is below that in the manufacturing industry. That is the record of this Government. That shows its dedication to home builders and home buyers. Seventy million dollars is going into the home savings grant scheme, the scheme that the Labor Government killed, the scheme it put down. The Labor Government said to the young people of Australia: ‘We will not allow the home savings grant scheme to go to you’. Let us look at the sorts of people buying these homes. The honourable member for Reid talked about a median of $60,000. Eighty-eight per cent of the young people who are using the home savings grant scheme are buying homes for less than $40,000. Taking that a bit further, we find that 34 per cent of them are buying homes for less than $30,000. These are no silvertails; these are not people buying at that median, that incredible average that cannot be found.

Mr Uren:

-i take a point of order. The honourable member could not even sell a house in his own electorate for $40,000.

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

Mr CADMAN:

– I am looking at national figures from the annual report of the home savings grant scheme. The honourable member for Reid can look them up and examine them. I suggest that he do so because it will be enlightening for him. He will find that 88 per cent of the young people in Australia buying their first home are buying for less than $40,000. So that is where the price of housing is. Those are the prices people are paying. Let us now deal with this incredible argument about the price of land. I happen to have before me figures taken by the New South Wales Valuer-General. These are official figures. Let us look at land prices in the suburbs of Sydney. In 1975 the price of a block of land in Blacktown was $11,000 whereas in 1979 it was $14,000 a block. The price of a block of land in Campbelltown in 1975 was $9,000 a block and in 1979 $14,000 a block. In Penrith it was $9,500 a block in 1975 and $1 1,500 in 1979. They were gradual increases and they show a concern by this Government and a stable economy.

Sure, prices of land are going up in other areas, areas of which I know the honourable member is well aware. Let us look at Gordon, that beautiful suburb on the northern fringes of Sydney. Prices there have certainly risen; from $30,000 in 1975 to $55,000 today. Prices for land in Pennant Hills have risen from $ 1 9,000 in 1 975 to $30,000 today. So selective price increases have taken place in Sydney. There is no doubt about that. But what we are finding is that people who are more affluent have greater concern for their life style under a Liberal Government. They have the money to back that life style and are going into fashionable and nicely appointed suburbs. They are paying a lot more money for houses. But the young people, the young first home buyers, the people of Blacktown, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Green Valley, Liverpool, Penrith and Windsor are the people who have found a stability in official land prices. I think that indicates that with increased building by young people the building industry in New South Wales, both as regards land costs and materials, is moving steadily forward.

Mr Uren:

– Could I make a special request? Why won’t the honourable member tell us about Baulkham Hills? Why won’t he tell us about his own electorate in Baulkham Hills? What is the cost of housing there?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member of Reid will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Mitchell.

Mr CADMAN:

– The cost of housing inquiry identifies the high productivity of the Australian building industry. It identifies the capacity that this Government has to effect a stable building industry. I have given honourable members the figures. Looking at the outer suburbs we find that since 1975 the consumer price index has risen by 48 per cent. From an index of 100 in 1975 it has risen to an index now of 148. For the current year, the cost of land in the outer suburbs of Sydney has risen to an index of 141, a rise less than the rise in the cost of living.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. The discussion is concluded.

page 1204

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1979 (No. 2), the Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1 979 and the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– This debate was interrupted some time ago and I am happy to say that I can continue it. The Government Whip indicated to me that he might grant me an extension of time of a few minutes because of that interruption. The reason for that is that it would be very difficult for the listening public to pick up the continuity of what we are discussing here, namely, the Government’s Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill. The Bill was introduced and I then had a chance to commence my speech but because of the Government’s running of the program there was insufficient time to complete that speech and the debate was adjourned until this day. It was on that basis that I spoke to the Government Whip and I make the point so that the people listening can understand that the debate is continuing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-How much extra time was granted?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I understand that it was about 10 minutes. That, of course, is a matter for the Government to consider. The point I want to make is that in the course of my earlier remarks I stated that the Opposition is objecting to the Bill. We suggested that it be withdrawn and redrafted. We did so on the basis that from our point of view the Bill is not good enough. We accept the point of view that there has to be an intelligence organisation in this country, but we believe that it ought to be on a bipartisan basis so that there is no politics in it and so that its performance does not interfere with the civil liberties of people.

It was on that basis that we suggested that the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted and that it provide, for example, for annual reports to the Parliament so that the Parliament itself could be fully informed of the activities of the intelligence organisation; that there be a regular, periodic judicial audit so that the guarantee was there that the organisation had complied with its charter and that it did not interfere with civil liberties; that it operated effectively and efficiently; that the responsible Minister be fully informed by the Director-General of ASIO on all matters other than the contents of files relating to particular individuals; that the Leader of the Opposition be fully and regularly briefed on all aspects if he so wished; that there be proper financial accountability of ASIO; that there be a redefinition of the concept of security and, in particular, the element of subversion in order to narrow its scope and limit the possibility of its misapplication; that the restriction of circumstances in which the times at which warrants may be issued also be properly controlled; that a security appeals system be given retrospective operation as recommended by the Hope report; that no person be denied notification of the existence of an adverse security assessment; and that communication of information purporting to identify an ASIO employee or agent be penalised only when such information would endanger the safety of such person or persons. The reason for that restatement of the position is so that people can understand the Opposition ‘s point of view.

When the debate was interrupted, I was talking about comments made by His Honour Mr Justice White in the report he made on the Special Branch in South Australia. He made the point that the operations of the Special Branch really had nothing to do with the intelligence organisation or security of this country, but had a lot to do with the politics of this country and that there was no real control or direction as to what intelligence was all about. For example, he makes this point:

After 1953-54, Special Branch files assumed a new dimension of intense interest in Labor political opinions . . All elected State Labor leaders became the subjects of index cards . . . Interest in extreme right-wing organisations paled into insignificance.

That is a very important point because the whole point of what we are about is terrorism, espionage and danger to people. A lot of those activities can take place by right wing extremists. In fact, at present, one can say that that seems to be the real problem area. Here we find His Honour Mr Justice White making this point:

Interest in centre, moderate left, radical and extreme left opinion was the main preoccupation. Like the Maginot Line, all defences against anticipated subversion, real or imagined, were built on one side . . . Special Branch criteria for recording material . . . were not based on the possiblity of violence or force to overthrow the Government. Nor were they based on any real suspicion of possible espionage. They were based, rather, on the unreasoned assumption that any persons who thought or acted less conservatively than suited the security force were likely to be potential dangers to the security of the nation.

The words Mr Justice White used to describe the security recording system of South Australia were that it was ‘wasteful’ and it was ‘objectionable’. It is important to bear those criticisms in mind. Not only is the type of security checking objectionable on the grounds of civil liberties; it is also extremely wasteful of ASIO ‘s limited resources to identify those few people who will be genuine security risks. Operations such as that conducted by the South Australian Special Branch, and clearly also by ASIO in the past in conducting surveillance and maintaining files on people who are clearly not security risks, are not only a gross and unjustified infringement of civil liberties; they are an absurd waste of time and a waste of public money.

The net of ASIO should be cast as narrowly as possible. At the Committee stage we will be moving amendments to each of the three elements of the definition of ‘domestic subversion’ under proposed section 5(1) in order to limit their scope and to prevent them being used as an excuse for stupid and objectionable forays by ASIO into domestic politics as distinct from domestic subversion. The Opposition proposes five levels of public accountability. Firstly, we believe that subject to one exception there should be complete ministerial accountability for ASIO. Secondly, we believe that the Leader of the Opposition should be advised completely about the operation of ASIO. Thirdly, we believe that there should be annual reports to Parliament detailing the general operation of ASIO. Fourthly, we believe that a proper system of financial accountability of ASIO needs to be established. Fifthly, we believe that there should be regular judicial audit of ASIO.

I will deal with each of these criticisms. We regard clause 8 of the Bill as being of very great importance. We also regard it in its present form as being quite unacceptable. Clause 8 of the Bill as it stands provides that the Minister is not empowered to override the opinion of the Director-General concerning the nature of the advice that should be given by the Organisation to a Minister, department or authority of the Commonwealth. Clearly this means that no Minister, not even the Attorney-General, can require the Director-General to provide him with information. We object strongly to that. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) said in the Senate:

Clause 8 is the very pivot of the Bill.

He also said:

Clause 8(2)(c) is simply there … to prevent a Minister seeking to substitute his opinion for a professional opinion. Clause 8 (2) (c) does not have the object of limiting the information that the Director-General is obliged to supply to the Minister about the operations of the Organisation.

With all due respect to the Attorney-General, he does not understand the legislation. If his comments were correct we would have no objection. But the true effect of clause 8 (2) (c) is that it enables any Director-General of ASIO to withhold any information at any time from any Minister. I will not question the bona fides of the AttorneyGeneral in making that statement in the Senate, but it displays a sloppiness which is dangerous when one is dealing with legislation of this importance. ASIO is not, as clause 17(2) makes clear, a law enforcement agency. Its functions are spelt out in clause 17(1). They are basically to collect security intelligence in order to advise governments. However, clause 8 makes a mockery of this enabling the Director-General of ASIO to withhold information from governments. It is our view that the Minister responsible for ASIO, the Attorney-General, should be entitled to access to all ASIO records, with one exception: We do not believe that Ministers should be entitled to inspect the files of individuals.

The use of Federal Bureau of Investigation Security records for political purposes is well established overseas. We do not want to see such things happening in Australia. But it did. It happened on 29 September 1966. In an adjournment debate Mr Daly raised the case of a boy expelled fom Sydney Grammar School for refusing to wear the Army cadet uniform. The boy had claimed that the cadets were being indoctrinated to support Australia’s position in relation to the Vietnam war. In answering the allegation the then Minister for the Army tried to discredit the boy by reading from the security file relating to the boy’s mother. That he had read from the security file was confirmed the next afternoon at Question Time by the then Prime Minister, Mr Holt. If one looks at the Hansard record one will see that it clearly shows that the Prime Minister at the time indicated that his Minister had been reading from the file.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Who was the Minister?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The Minister for the Army at the time was the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The Hansard record of that date shows this. Unless a provision such as that which we will be moving at the Committee stage is inserted we will have no confidence that Ministers will not in future use security files on individuals for whatever purpose they think fit.

A matter on which there is widespread and justifiable community concern is the question of mail interception, searches and seizures, listening devices and the related question of telephone tapping dealt with in the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill. On these questions in relation to the Customs area we have already made our position clear: We will not countenance the use of such techniques in the law enforcement area except by judicial warrant. However, somewhat different considerations apply in relation to security. Security matters are not capable of the same precise judicial testing as are law enforcement matters. (Extension of time granted). I thank honourable members. We are talking about the difference in enforcement areas. Judicial warrants are essential in Customs and telecommunications matters but on the question of security we want political accountability. Therefore we are prepared to countenance ministerial warrants, but only in that area. We want to make that point.

As the Bill stands any concept of ministerial accountability is no more than a myth. We will not accept these new powers, nor should the public be expected to accept them, unless the very strictest safeguards against abuse are written into the legislation. The potential scope for invasion of privacy is enormous. There is no doubt that ASIO has, as have State police forces, engaged in unauthorised telephone tapping and bugging of premises. Not only must the legislation ensure that authorised telephone tapping, bugging and mail interception take place only when absolutely necessary, but it must also ensure that unauthorised interference does not occur. Our proposed amendments as they relate to this section of the Bill are wide ranging. Firstly, our provisions relating to periodic judicial audit would ensure that any illegal telephone tapping, bugging or mail interception is detected. Such a judicial audit would also ensure that spurious information is not given to Attorneys-General to justify the authorisation of warrants. Secondly, we believe that some information ought to be given to Parliament about the operation of these provisions. We make the point that a report should be given to the Parliament. In the Senate the Attorney-General said:

The Government takes the view that the number of warrants issued is itself a matter of great interest to our enemies.

Later he said:

I am not impressed -

I must remind myself that he was talking about 1973- by what Senator Murphy may have done in relation to security matters when he was Attorney-General. We as a government do not propose to disclose the number of warrants issued.

This attitude tells us how this legislation can become repressive. Members of the Government can become too secretive. They demonstrate that they do not believe in freedom of information. Yet they talk about ministerial accountability. They refuse to provide any information on the ground that to do so would help our enemies. This is not only absurd; it is dangerous. There should be a legislative requirement that information should be provided to the Parliament each year detailing, at the very least, the number of authorisations that have taken place. There should be an annual report to Parliament on the activities of ASIO during the previous year. Such a report of necessity would have to be in fairly general terms. We need not disclose information which would not be consistent with security requirements. On the question of accountability I want to make one point: It has been the practice over the last 30 years for Ministers responsible for ASIO to refuse to provide any information at all regarding ASIO. There was one exceptionour own Minister during the Labor period of government, Senator Murphy. In this legislation we seek to make it mandatory for certain information to be disclosed. The question of security must always be considered within the narrow concept of what we are about- that Ministers are responsible to Parliament and that the real issues are terrorism and espionage. It ought to be a matter for judgment by the responsible Minister as to whether he provides information in a particular case. At present, no information at all is provided about ASIO, yet the Government is still talking about ministerial accountability.

In the Committee stage the Opposition will move amendments that seek to ensure that the Leader of the Opposition is kept informed in detail about warrants issued under Division 2 of Part III. This provides an additional safeguard against abuse of power and does not in any way involve the Leader of the Opposition in the executive processes of government. It is simply an extra safeguard against improper authorisations by a Minister. We of the Opposition are totally opposed to the Director-General being able to issue warrants in so-called emergency situations. It is our view that, as I have mentioned, there should be complete ministerial accountability. Clause 28 of the ASIO Bill, as it stands, allows the Director-General to issue warrants of 48-hour duration in emergency situations. In all cases, warrants under this legislation should be authorised by the Attorney-General. In emergency situations, this authority can be oral. In respect of warrants issued under Division 2 of Part III, we believe that the time limit on the warrants is far too long. Six months is too long. We suggest it ought to be 90 days and we will move accordingly in the Committee stage. We believe that, as with the Customs Amendment Bill, there should be a provision to ensure that warrants are used only as a last resort. These sweeping new powers should be used only when the Attorney-General is satisfied that all other methods of investigation would be impracticable. Mr Justice Hope, in talking about departures by ASIO from the principles of propriety and legality, said:

It is not only a proper principle to intrude on a person’s privacy as little as possible. It should also, in the main, be cost-effective for ASIO that it should do so. . . . My impression is that ASIO may have made rather too little of open sources of information . . . Greater attention than hitherto to . . . obvious and legitimate sources will pay dividends for the organisation. The KGB is said never to believe anything unless they can obtain the information clandestinely. Some ASIO officers have made the same kind of mistake.

In view of this criticism and the dangers inherent in giving these new powers to ASIO it is essential to ensure that ASIO does not treat them as a new toy or does not rely on them when less intrusive methods of investigation are available.

The Opposition’s position in respect of the legislation has been made clear. Unless the civil liberties of Australians are safeguarded and protected, we cannot support any new powers being given to ASIO. In relation to our amendments in the Senate to the effect that the Minister should be satisfied that all other methods of investigation had been tried and failed, or would be impracticable, before issuing a warrant for the use of telephone taps, listening devices and mail interception, the Attorney-General said: . . actually to impose a statutory requirement on the Minister to become involved in each and every application, to become involved in the considerable detail of the organisation is, I believe, contrary to the scheme of the legislation which places those responsibilities on the Director-General.

That is a blatant misrepresentation. Under the legislation, except in relation to clause 28, it is the Minister who must be satisfied as to the need for the issue of a warrant.

As my time is running out in this debate, I make the point that a number of amendments will be moved in the Committee stage. I think it is appropriate to repeat the point that the Opposition fully understands the need for security in this country. The Labor Government’s two appointees to ASIO were Mr Justice Reed and Mr Justice Woodward, the present appointee. Significantly, they are the only two judicial appointments to ASIO. They have done a splendid job, and that is important. Again I make the point that in between times many unsatisfactory performances were seen and they had nothing to do with intelligence or the need for security in this country. That is the reason why the Opposition believes that the Government should accept its foreshadowed amendments. There would be no fear from any periodic judicial audit. How could any government object to a judge taking a look at the performance of ASIO? It is important that there should be regular periodic auditing. It is on that basis that the Opposition proposes to move 28 amendments. Some of the Opposition’s amendments in the Senate were accepted. It is some comfort to know that the Opposition’s amendments on the right of the Leader of the Opposition to have access to the annual report of the Director-General and also the right of regular consultation with the Director-General have been accepted. One of the major objections to the ASIO Bill is that security assessments could be provided to others- for example, to State instrumentalities. This could well affect other people. Therefore, we want to provide for retrospectivity in relation to appeals on security assessments, as was recommended by Mr Justice Hope. A person’s right to go before a tribunal is dependent on his being notified of an adverse security assessment. There is a Catch-22 situation in proposed new section 38 (2) in that the Attorney-General can remove that right by preventing a person from being given any such notice. As I have said, on behalf of the Opposition I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-This is a debate on four Bills- the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill, the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1979 [No. 2], the Telecommunications Amendment Bill and the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2). They are being debated cognately because they are related measures. The House has listened to a 40- minute speech by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). He is a very intelligent member of the House. Having listened to him the first time these Bills were before the House, I heard him deliver himself of many tensions he felt in respect of the legislation. I thought that he was in a sense upon a couch trying to release the tensions. He was concerned, for example, about the time being allowed for the debate, interruptions to the debate, the time he would be speaking and inadequate time being allowed for prior briefing in respect of the debate. Today, of course, he was given the privilege of being granted an extension of time in which to speak. I hope that, having delivered himself of all these tensions, he is more relaxed because as a result of what we on the Government side will say in this debate a few more tensions will be created. They deserve to be put in his own mind and in the minds of Opposition supporters because they concern the substance of the amendments which the Opposition proposes to move, especially the substance of the amendments foreshadowed in respect of the ASIO Bill.

I want to deal with just a few points but before doing so I want to put in perspective just how important security legislation in fact is. Ultimately security concerns the defence of the realm, both domestically and externally. When the Profumo scandal hit the United Kingdom, the inquiry under Lord Denning of the Court of Appeals made it perfectly clear that that investigation was concerned ultimately with the Profumo affair because it was concerned with the defence of the realm. When a charter which is designed to balance corporate responsibility and personal rights is given to a security organisation the ultimate purpose of that charter is the defence of a country. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, it needs to be remembered, is not a policy agency. It is a gatherer of information and an advisory agency. In that sense attempts to make comparisons between it and the American organisations are not fair because it is not an executive agency, as the American agencies are and as they have been. All the difficulties that have arisen in that country have arisen because there has been this confusion of roles and confusion of responsibilities. When a security organisation fails a nation is in jeopardy. When it does not operate satisfactorily a nation is in jeopardy. When it operates badly human rights are endangered. Here we have a charter that is concerned with the corporate personality of Australia and of persons within Australia. Therefore its proper function can be a matter of life and death. In security matters this is always so.

In the Senate 90 amendments were proposed to the legislation. On this occasion the Labor Party Opposition has come down to 28 foreshadowed amendments. So a total of 1 1 8 amendments have been proposed.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Government did concede some of the Labor Party’s amendments.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

-I do not deny that. I thank the honourable member for the information which was already available. The proposition from members of the Opposition is that they are not opposed to the ASIO legislation yet they put forward a multitude of amendments so as to cut off the Organisation ‘s arms and legs and effectively emasculate it. I will demonstrate how that could happen. Having read some of the propositions put forward by the honourable member for Melbourne Pons (Mr Holding) at the Adelaide conference of the Australian Labor Party I think that he has a little explaining to do as to his attitude on a variety of matters.

The House should consider the consequences when a security organisation fails. I will give examples of both domestic and international significance. When Benes was the Foreign Minister and subsequently the leader of Czechoslovakia between the two world wars, the ultimate burden he carried into negotiations in the late 1930s was the fact that his own security organisation failed to inform him of the strife developing between ethnic groups within his own country. He was seriously misinformed. That is an example of the failure of a domestic security organisation. It is a matter of history. As a result, except for a short time after World War II, Czechoslovakia has never again enjoyed freedom. In November last year the Central Intelligence Agency, the American overseas agency, informed the American President that no tension was developing in the Middle East and that everything in Iran was correct. I do not know whether the United States could have done anything about the situation in Iran but the American President was very seriously misinformed. As a result so much of American foreign policy in respect of the Middle East fell apart. That event has had consequences for Australia. Everybody who puts petrol into a petrol tank knows of them. If a security agency fails- where it operates domestically- the nation is in danger. History indicates that. If a security organisation fails in relation to foreign commitment the foreign policy of a country can fall apart.

When the Opposition speaks to this legislation it is appropriate to remember a little history. It is not so easy to put aside all that occurred when former Senator Murphy was Attorney-General. That situation needs to be recalled. In 1971-72 Senator Murphy made no threat that when he got into power he would lead a raid on ASIO. But when he got the power such a raid occurred. When in 1979 the Opposition says that if it gets into power in 1980 it will not lead a raid on ASIO, what guarantee is there that there will not be a repeat of the former circumstance? Why does 1979-80 represent for the Opposition so much more purity than did 1 97 1 -72 in relation to our security organisation? I merely ask the House to consider for a few moments the clear parallels between the two periods. The Opposition hopes to gain power at the end of 1 980. We know and it is well attested that there was a psychological despair within the Australian security agency at the time of the raid. Overseas bodies which dealt with ASIO were concerned. They wanted to know what former Senator Murphy did not do. They wanted to know what did not occur before the ties could be reforged. It is appropriate at this time to look back for half a dozen years and remember what occurred then. Why will it be so different if the same circumstances develop in the future? There is a lot of explaining to do. That explaining ought to occur during the course of this debate. What is different?

I want to deal with a couple of measures which have been proposed. At this stage of the debate I have only a few minutes in which to do so. I merely say that ASIO can be killed by a succession of wounds and contradictory amendments. We accept the Opposition’s words of reassurance but do they mean much? I refer to a proposition which has been put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition today and which has been mentioned at great length by the prime mentor for the Opposition in this matter, Senator Evans. It concerns the proposal for a regular judicial review under the aegis of a judge, perhaps of the Supreme Court, every three years. That proposition sounds dreadfully reasonable, totally innocent, and completely innocuous. But is it innocuous? What is the significance of such a proposition? A judicial review is not a simple review like a financial audit. It is a review of the practices and the principles of an organisation, who it has contacted, what it has done, how it has done it and so on. There are many judges in Australia liable to be picked for such a judicial review. There are well over 100 Supreme Court judges in Australia. I can immediately think of a couple whose names would only have to be dropped for the security organisation to be in a shambles within a week. I mention one, although he is not a Supreme Court judge. If the Opposition said that it would appoint Jimmy Staples to look at the organisation it would be destroyed within a week.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The point of order is unnecessary. I was about to act myself. The honourable member ought not to refer to a learned judge, no matter who he is, in such familiar terms. The Standing Orders are strict about the mention of judges in this House. I ask the honourable member to resume his speech but it might be as well if he withdrew his remark in relation to Mr Justice Staples.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

-I withdraw my comments with respect to a particular judge. I ask honourable members to let their imaginations run over a number of judges in Australia and to ask themselves which ones would be inappropriate to conduct a judicial review. There is no guarantee as to who would be chosen. A guarantee would be appropriate and ought to be made. Why is a judicial review, an inquisitorial arrangement in respect of the security organisation, necessary? Have we not just had a judicial review of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation? What, in fact, is the Hope report but the report of a judicial review? It is simply that. Does the Opposition want a review every three years? Let me refer to one of the resolutions which was passed at the Adelaide Conference of the Australian Labor Party in the context of judicial reviews. A resolution in respect of industrial organisations in Australia asserted the recognition of the rights of unions to regulate their own affairs in a democratic way free from government and judicial interference. The Opposition has one rule with respect to industrial organisations but another with respect to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Why is there the distinction? Why should one be pried into every few years but any review of the other resisted? The parallels are appropriate to be made.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– The union meetings are held in public.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

-If they are held in public there was no reason to pass that motion. When the motion was passed there was a protest by one of the delegates from Western Australia. He was concerned that under the resolution a union member could be prevented from seeking an equitable remedy from the courts. But that plea fell on deaf ears. So they are to be free from any judicial review. The honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), in ultimately justifying this approach, said:

It just would not be true to say that all unions would act in a democratic way, free from judicial interference.

Having said that, he then voted for the resolution which was introduced as an amendment and which was voted on by the conference. Why is the distinction made? A judicial review is far more than an ordinary audit. If we look at the parallel, we see that in 1977 there was brought into this House industrial legislation which required that there be a financial audit of industrial union affairs and that there be appropriate publication and transmission of the information concerning those affairs. It was merely a financial audit. The Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union collects $8m to $9m a year. Over the last half a dozen years it has raised its fees by 230 per cent to 340 per cent. That legislation was merely a request to have a financial audit. It was resisted -

Mr McLean:

– By whom?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– By the Opposition in this House. The Bill was opposed by the Opposition in this House. What a contrast between attitudes on that kind of matter and attitudes with respect to Australia’s security organisation. I merely ask the House to consider why there is a disparity in attitudes, why there is a distinction in attitudes and why that should be done with respect to a security organisation. In the Senate the Opposition had 90 amendments with which to tie this up; here the Opposition has 28 amendments, making a total of 1 1 8 amendments. After all, we know that the Lilliputians were able to destroy Gulliver with a host of little pieces of string. There are 118 amendments, some of which may be accepted- as the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) would be aware- and which would effectively have the same result. It ought to be represented and known for what it is. Security legislation is very important. Attempts to tie it so that it cannot function effectively need to be examined very closely.

I was interested in what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had to say with respect to sections 8 and 18. Section 18 defines some defences. Section 8 gives certain guarantees as to the circumstances under which a director-general may make information available, and asserts that the Director-General can resist advice from the Minister as to the circumstances under which he can make information or advice available. He can be his own master, and there are occasions on which he deserves and ought to be his own master, free from ministerial interference. Were the amendments proposed by the Opposition to be accepted, one would get dangerously close to ministerial directions being required to be carried out in detail by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. This House ought to resist that course of events very fully and very clearly. Sections 8, 18 and 54 are all concerned with protections and they are so concerned because for the first time there is a clear charter in respect of this Organisation.

It ought to be noted in passing that ASIO, when it was first set up under the Chifley Government, was set up under significant advice from the British domestic security organisation which had a military origin. In those days there was no desire to retreat from that proposition. When ASIO was set up it was set up for a reason which was quite clear and which was known to the Australian people. There were forces which were working actively against a free government in Australia. At that time the leaders of the Government were aware of that fact and they acted. They gave the Organisation the valid weapons with which to function. It is our duty in this House to see that the adequate weapons with which to function are not taken away from the Organisation.

I come back to the point at which I began, namely, that most of the amendments ought to be rejected out of hand. The most important amendment is not that to section 8; it is the amendment proposing a judicial review. For reasons of common sense, for reasons of what occurs elsewhere in Australian society, for reasons of what occurs with respect to other organisations in Australian society, and for reasons of no guarantees as to the nature of appointments, it ought to be quite clear to this House that there ought to be no judicial review but that rights are to be determined within the valid aims of the security organisation. If we do that we will find that the country will be better off. Certainly, most of the 118 amendments ought to be rejected out of hand.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– I know that it is the custom of this House, in the case of the introduction of a Bill that has already been passed by the other place, that the second reading speech in this House is virtually word for word the speech given in the other place. However, when the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) introduced this Bill on 22 May, the fact that he repeated sentence for sentence and paragraph for paragraph the speech delivered some three months earlier by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) in the other place did show a certain contempt for this House. Indeed, in the Minister’s speech there were only four alterations. One paragraph and three sentences were altered. That does seem to suggest a certain contempt for the profound and extensive debate that had taken place in the other House. Was it not worth the Government rethinking at least some of that introductory speech in the light of the impressive debate that had taken place in the other House?

Today we are dealing with a package of measures designed to provide a legislative structure for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. We have long had such an organisation, but it has had no adequate legislative structure. The present- the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1956- is skeletal, vacuous and perfunctory. It fails to spell out precisely the functions of the Organisation, its powers, or the form and extent of its responsibility. Let it be said that this package of measures at least attempts to lay down a charter for ASIO and a definition of its functions, the extent of its powers and the rights of citizens with respect to the Organisation. In that sense this Bill is at least an improvement on what we have.

It is a regrettable necessity that any country will need intelligence agencies of some kind to protect it against forms of external espionage, subversion, sabotage and terrorism by foreign powers. The nature of the international environment makes that a necessity, although I think it should be noted that we in Australia are probably much more fortunate than most other embattled societies. Secondly, it is an evilperhaps a necessary evil- that we may also require intelligence agencies to counter internally generated subversion, sabotage and terrorism. It is somewhat paradoxical that a democracy should require such protection against its own citizens. Indeed, in one sense it is a measure of failure. The greater the power, the authority and the activity of secret intelligence agencies with respect to its own citizens, the weaker that democracy is. There is almost certainly an inverse correlation between the strength of secret intelligence agencies and the strength of the democracy.

Taking the full extent of the continuum, on one end is the totalitarian state where secret police are an essential instrument of coercion and control, and at the other end is an ideal democratic state which is fully confident about its internal situation and which needs no protection against its own citizens. Therefore, those who wish to preserve an open and democratic society need to be peculiarly aware of, and concerned about, the secret arm of government. That is the reason why this legislation needs very special attention. It may be that paradoxically it is necessary that we have a secret arm of government to preserve an open and democratic society, but that should never render us complacent about the supervision, accountability and responsibility of that organisation.

History should warn us that the so-called guardians of the democratic way of life often becomes its gravediggers. If one examines the betrayal of the Weimar democracy, one of the agents of that betrayal was its own secret police which owed a higher allegiance, or at least another allegiance in that deteriorating situation in Weimar Germany in the late 1 920s.

The role of the American secret agencies in the Mccarthyite perversions of the 1950s was a threat to the very democracy that the secret agencies were designed to protect. These agencies have been used by at least one American President to deny American citizens their democratic rights, and in fact used by him to corrupt the electoral process which is surely at the heart of the democratic system.

We in Australia have no cause for smugness about the performance of our own security organisations in the past. In his report on intelligence and security Mr Justice Hope stated:

There are limitations upon what a security organisation should do in a democratic society. Aims, even of security, do not justify all means. What has to be kept secure is not simply a physical entity; the society which exists within Australia is one with standards and principles which secure rights and freedoms as well as obligations. That society is not to be safeguarded by a repudiation of those standards or those principles with the consequent erosion of rights and freedoms.

This has certainly occurred in other countries. Mr Justice Hope continued:

Material before me establishes that there have at times been departures by ASIO from these principles. The departures have been of varying significance. Their justification has also varied in weight.

Mr Justice Hope was very discreet, but let us not pretend that we did not have our own McCarthyism in this society in the 1950s, that we did not have our own anti-communist hysteria and we did not have ASIO involved in the slime of those events. As Mr Justice Hope points out, there was much bias, inaccuracy and sheer waste involved in the material collected by ASIO in Australia. This was also made very clear in the examination done by Mr Justice White in South Australia when he looked at the work of the Special Branch in that State. Mr Justice White stated:

My perusal of Special Branch files shows that many hundreds of people have done nothing more than take an active part in many causes where time and changing opinion have usually proved them to be right in the eyes of most Australians- campaigns against involvement in the Vietnam war or conscription for the purposes of that war, the importance of the environment and ecology and so on. They are the kinds of activities that active persons with a social conscience and a vision of a better Australia are entitled to be involved in without the brand of suspected subversion.

Indeed, much of Mr Justice White’s report indicates that anything slightly left wing was treated as subversive and therefore worthy of the surveillance of the Special Branch agencies.

Again, we know that ASIO in this country has leaked material to the Press in order to help to corrupt the democratic process itself. Information collected by ASIO surveillance has then been leaked and used politically. In this regard Mr Justice Hope stated:

Evidence is available to me that satisfies me that ASIO has in the past provided selected people with security intelligence material for publication.

So let us not be smug. We have had the same perversions in this country by the secret arm as the United States of America has suffered and as other democracies have suffered. We need to ensure that, as in other democratic societies, the secret agencies of government do not contaminate the democratic process. Therefore, we need to be particularly vigilant, and particularly vigilant today when the threat of terrorism is too easily used as a justification for breaching the liberties of all citizens. I think it is very easy to create a climate of fear about terrorism, much the same as the climate of fear of communism in an earlier period.

Therefore, for these reasons, the Opposition will not simply bow down to the kind of vacuous rhetoric- reasons of state, defence of the realm, national interest- which has been used down the centuries to prevent and inhibit inquiry into the secret actions and agents of government. We are not prepared to leave this legislation unchallenged because the present operators responsible for ASIO, the Attorney-General, Senator Durack, and the Director-General, Mr Justice Woodward, are men of integrity. We do not deny that these two men are men of integrity but that is no reason for accepting this Bill. We know that organisations like ASIO are themselves corrosive of the integrity of men, and others, with previous reputations ibr integrity, have been corroded by such organisations. But, more importantly, neither Senator Durack nor Mr Justice Woodward is immortal and there will be other men working under the provisions of this Bill. Certainly one could have no confidence in the future of this organisation unless the Bill before the House is radically amended.

We have four major fields of concern. Firstly, there is the supervision and accountability of ASIO. What we want to try to secure is to involve the Parliament in some way in this supervision. We want to secure a periodic judicial audit. We want to strengthen the role of the Minister visavis the Director-General, that is, strengthen the role of the representative figure against the bureaucrat. We want a greater involvement of the Leader of the Opposition in this supervision. We want to institute a proper system of financial accountability for the organisation and we wish to reduce the inhibitions on public discussions of ASIO. Only by that whole complex of changes can we assure effective supervision of and accountability by ASIO.

The second major cause of concern is the scope of security activity. We desire a redefinition of the concept of security, in particular of the critical element of subversion. It is far too broad and all encompassing. The third major concern is the need to balance security requirements against the right to privacy of individual citizens; that is, whatever security needs there may be for bugging and wire tapping, those needs have to be balanced very firmly against the right of the individual to privacy. Therefore, we want to tighten the circumstances under which warrants for wire tapping and electronic surveillance should be issued. We want to restrict the period for which such warrants should operate. Our fourth major field of concern is that we want to look at the security appeal system. We recognise it as an advance, but we would like to see an element of retrospectivity introduced into the system and we want to broaden the notification provisions.

Let me take each of those briefly in turn and particularly the all important issue of the supervision and accountability of ASIO. It is an extremely difficult and complex task to ensure effective supervision and accountability of a secret agency. Indeed, I think it is more difficult than was recognised by Mr Justice Hope himself. It is certainly not satisfactorily resolved in this Bill.

First is the question of responsibility to the appropriate Minister; that is, the normal pattern of government responsibility with the civil servant being responsible to the appropriate Minister. There is a danger here, what I might call the Nixon phenomenon; that is, there is always a danger in that kind of relationship that the secret arm of government may be perverted for the political domestic ends of the executive concerned, as was clearly done in the case of President Nixon. I think this Government is aware of that problem in terms of ministerial responsibility. It has tried to cover it fairly clearly in clause 8 but, in doing so, it has run into the other danger, the alternative danger, what I might call the authoritarian arrogance of the private arm of government. It is exemplified by the Weimar phenomenon, or, in South Australia, the Salisbury phenomenon where the secret service believes it has a loyalty to some higher concept- to the state, to the Crown, or in the case of ASIO, to the Central Intelligence Agency; it has some loyalty over and above, higher and more important than its loyalty or responsibility to the elected executive.

All of these situations which I have just mentioned- the Weimar, Salisbury and the ASIO responsibility to the CIA- deny the responsibility of the intelligence agency to the democratically elected government of the day. Thus in seeking to avoid what I call the Nixon perversion, there is a real danger of allowing an autonomy to the intelligence agency which is equally subversive of democratic interests. Too great a supervision has its dangers but, equally, Weimar should remind us that too little supervision is equally fraught with peril. It seems to me that in this Bill the Government is insufficiently sensitive to the threat posed by a security service with a dangerous degree of autonomy.

But even if this relationship is satisfactorily solved, if both the Nixon danger and the Salisbury danger are avoided- that is, if we get a satisfactory balance between the Executive and the agency- the problem is not solved because, as Justice Hope notes in his third report, often the Executive becomes very perfunctory about its responsibilities. He states:

There has been a tendency over the years for ministers to take the intelligence security business for granted or to leave it to go its own way.

That the Executive becomes perfunctory or careless is one danger. The other danger of the relationship is that it becomes symbiotic- the Executive and the agency are parasitic on each other. That, of course, is the sort of typical relationship between the Executive and bureaucracy throughout the whole Public Service. There is a belief that the Executive and the bureaucracy together know what is good for us all and that they alone have the expertise to manage things. Such a relationship needs to be criticised by this Parliament. In the case of security that criticism is essential. Security is just too important to be left to this unholy duo of Executive and bureaucracy. Therefore, the Parliament must be brought into the supervisory role.

I think it must be said of Justice Hope that he is rather cavalier about the Parliament. Of course, too many people in this Parliament tolerate that kind of cavalier attitude toward the Parliament. He dismisses the notion of a supervisory committee being provided by the Parliament. Further he argues that Ministers should not respond to parliamentary questions on ASIO. In addition he opposes provisions to ensure the presentation of an annual report by ASIO to the Parliament, and he is against adequate financial information on ASIO being placed before the Parliament. Whilst Justice Hope dismisses all of these proposals for the Parliament to play a role in ASIO- he says that none of those things are possible and that Parliament cannot play a rolebut at the same time he maintains that ASIO has a role in supervising individual politicians. We need to think a little more about that relationship. Unfortunately, because of what Justice Hope said, in this Bill the Government gives no role whatsoever to the Parliament. The Labor Party believes that it is necessary to involve Parliament in the supervision of ASIO.

I am not saying that such a proposal provides any easy solution. There are too many historic cases of secret services becoming simply the instruments of popular prejudice manipulated by demagogues. I am not suggesting that the Parliament is in itself a solution. For instance, in the Mccarthyite period in the United States the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency became willing instruments of a Congress reflecting the popular anticommunist hysteria of the time.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– They are quite different organisations. You know that.

Dr BLEWETT:

-There are similarities between these secret arms of government and the role played by ASIO. I agree that we can also make distinctions between them. We need to note today the ease with which in our society popular prejudice can be manipulated against small religious sects, particularly those of oriental persuasion, and this prejudice can infect the Parliament. Thus Parliament provides no answer in itself to the complex task of supervising and rendering ASIO accountable in Australian society. Therefore, finally, we need to involve the judiciary in the process as well.

If honourable members have followed the argument that I have tried to build up about supervision of ASIO, they will see that what we need to meet a complex problem is a complex, multifaceted system of control. There is a beginning in this Bill and we need to complete it in the amendments that we make. Believing that the autonomy of ASIO is the least recognised danger, the Labor Party would strengthen the powers of the Minister vis-a-vis the DirectorGeneral to ensure that the only information the Director-General could withhold from the Minister would be the content of files relating to particular individuals. To protect the people against an Executive bureaucratic alliance we would first of all strengthen the role of the Leader of the Opposition by ensuring full and regular briefings. Secondly, we would try to involve the Parliament by providing it with an annual report and financial information on ASIO. It is simply nonsense to suggest that useful information on these matters could not be provided to Parliament without endangering security of ASIO personnel. I would be perfectly content with a one-page report which included the number of telephone taps and their duration and the number of listening devices placed and the duration of their placement. If that one-page report came to this Parliament we would have some chance of supervising the incidence of this type of cancer in our society. It may be necessary to have these devices, but at least this Parliament needs to be able to supervise the incidence of their use. Such a report would give away no security secrets. Indeed, it might suggest how active our security is.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– You have amendments about the details of the numbers.

Dr BLEWETT:

– I do not believe that even the honourable member for Lilley could oppose on any ground whatsoever this piece of information being provided regularly to the Parliament.

This debate will continue and we will deal with many of the other issues which I have raised but it seems to me that the first and most important question is to try to involve the whole complex of our authorities- judiciary, Executive and Parliament- in an adequate supervision of this organisation.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Whilst I do not agree with everything said by the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), the previous speaker in this debate, I believe that he, like the Deputy Leader of his party, the honourable member for KingsfordSmith (Mr Lionel Bowen), has put forward thoughts and considerations which should command at least thoughtful consideration from both sides of the House. This Bill was discussed in the Senate for some 32 hours and, as a result, some amendments were made. Indeed, the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) promised at the conclusion of that debate that he would look closely at some aspects of the Bill. I also recognise that this Bill is vitally important to the very security of this nation. It follows the events at the Hilton Hotel in Sydney and the terrorist attack on the late Lord Mountbatten. That was the most recent example of terrorism. It also follows the recent suicide of Jean Seberg, the American actress, whose health deteriorated as a result of alleged persecution by a similar organisation in the United States. I believe that examples abound which make it the obligation of every member of this Parliament to consider seriously the views of other persons in this House. Nothing should be dismissed lightly.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is being given, by this legislation, a very unique role in this country. The Director-General of ASIO simply will have to report to the Minister and to the Leader of the Opposition. Yet that report may be as useful to the Minister as the reports of the egg board and the honey board. The Bill does not stipulate anything; it contains only general terms. The Director-General may choose to give the Minister a four-page report which says absolutely nothing. The previous speaker advocates that ASIO should be fully accountable to the Parliament. The very nature of ASIO’s duties requires it to work behind the scenes in many an instance. However I do not regard those groups in our community who are expressing concern at this time, and who have been lobbying members on both sides of this House, as being ratbags who have nothing about which to be concerned. The very definition of ‘subversion’ is wide open. Organisations of a peacekeeping nature or of a surveillance type have an ability- I am not saying that it exists today- to attract a particular type of person. These organisations have the ability to attract the occasional person who does not have the necessary balance. There is the particular type of person who can work in the wrong direction and proceed completely without balance. That in itself can be dangerous.

It can lead to persons or groups being persecuted for beliefs which are really not of the type that would endanger the security of this nation. Whilst I can understand the all-embracing application of the definition of subversion, I can also understand the concern of some people and, indeed, the demands of some people that there must be more accountability than simply a short report or a report to a particular Minister. I speak as one who recalls very vividly the raid on ASIO by Mr Justice Murphy. Sir, I am fearful of your calling me to order, as you did the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns), so I will refer to him as the then Minister, Lionel Murphy.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

- Senator.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Or Senator Murphy. The tragedy is that Opposition members had developed such a paranoia over so many years about what ASIO supposedly represented, that in Launceston in 1971 the person who was later to be the responsible Minister (Senator Murphy) had to defend the very right of a security organisation to exist. It was ironic that some two years later he was to lead that early morning raid on the ASIO headquarters in Melbourne. I think it is understandable to a degree for the imaginations of people to run riot about a secret organisation. People can lose their sense of direction in their assessment of the worth of such an organisation. So important are the powers of the Director-General and his staff that I believe that there should be more accountability than simply the requirement for a small report. I know it will be argued that the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister of the day will be party to any appointment. Indeed, I was part of the reason in the early stages for having this clause inserted. But the Leader of the Opposition does not have to agree for a person to be appointed. He has simply to be consulted. It is a matter of courtesy. If he objects violently, that does not mean that the government of the day will take on board those objections and appoint a different Director-General.

Indeed, we are lucky, as I think previous speakers on both sides of the House and speakers in the other place have acknowledged, that the current Director-General, Mr Justice Woodward, is a person of great integrity and a person who will carry out his duties as this Parliament would like to see them carried out. Furthermore, he will do his level best to ensure that those within his control also follow that course. But people come and go and here we are placing on the statute book legislation in which there is no sunset clause and there is no promise by the Government that the legislation will be reviewed in three or four years after we have had an opportunity to observe it in practise.

This legislation could remain on the statute book for many years to come. Indeed, the history of ASIO goes back to 1949 when the then Prime Minister sent a letter to Mr Justice Reed appointing him Director-General of Security and requesting him to establish and operate a security service. It received a second charter in 1 950, again in a Prime Minister’s letter. By this time Mr Justice Reed had been replaced by the then Colonel C. C. F. Spry. The first Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act was passed in 1956. It was not amended for 20 years. I wonder how long it will be before changes are made to this legislation. I wonder whether we are placing in the hands of the unseen, strengths and powers that will be used in a wrongful way that we in this Parliament cannot envisage. How can we review a Bill if we are not to be told anything about ASIO.

I have acknowledged at the very outset the unique role that an organisation such as this plays. I acknowledge that the Organisation, by virtue of clause 5 of the ASIO Bill, is to be responsible for ensuring that there are no activities directed to obstructing, hindering or interfering with the performance by the Defence Force of its functions or the carrying out of other activities by or for the Commonwealth for the purposes of security or the defence of the Commonwealth. It is a little like motherhood. Nobody in his right mind could oppose that. There are sections of this Bill which every member of this House, if he is loyal to this country, would uphold. The Bill defines activities to be watched or that are subversive as activities directed to promoting violence or hatred between different groups of persons in the Australian community so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth. Constructions have been placed on possible interpretation of that provision. I will not enter into that here and now.

I am trying to say that the Attorney-General saw fit to assure the Senate after 32 hours of debate that he would look at certain aspects of the Bill. In view of the fact that there has been inaction since then, we in this chamber have an obligation, spurred on by his acknowledged interest, not to allow the Bill to pass through this chamber simply with a rubber stamp of approval. Indeed, I deeply believe that this Bill is of such moment that it should command a reference to a legislation committee. Frankly, I do not understand why we set up legislation committees if, when a Bill of this nature comes before us, it is simply put through the House of Representatives on the basis that it was well discussed in the Senate. I believe that this chamber possesses the balance and the ability that the other chamber of this Parliament possesses. Historically, most of the Prime Ministers and Ministers of this nation have come from the back benches of this House. However, we are to be deprived of the close examination of this legislation that a legislation committee can provide.

I sat in on the legislation committee’s examination of the Customs legislation. Indeed, we also brought about alterations to the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill. The right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon)- a former Prime Minister- and I stood fast for the authorisation of the telephone tapping of suspected drug offenders to be vested not in the hands of the Attorney-General but in the hands of a judge. That legislation committee brought about changes to that Bill. There has been no suggestion that that Bill has been rendered ineffective and inoperative. I am not suggesting that such a committee would necessarily agree to bring about changes but the Bill is at least worth further consideration. Once it becomes an Act and it is proclaimed the whole nation will live with it and from then on hardly a person in the country will know exactly how it is being administered.

I mentioned earlier that this Bill closely follows grisly acts of terrorism in the world which indeed have been occurring for some years and which make nobody in this place at all happy. I also hold the view that, because there have been events within our country and elsewhere, one should not simply abandon for all times the rights of all individuals. Those who hold high positions might well be described as sitting ducks for an act of terrorism. Those of us on the back bench and, indeed, members of the Opposition enjoy a relatively more secure feeling as we go about our work. I am not saying that those at the very top should be endangered in any way by a lessening of surveillance, but I am saying that we should avoid getting into the situation which we have witnessed in the United States of America and in other countries- I do not necessarily accept the views of the previous speaker that Australia is already at that stage- and avoid ever reaching that stage of bringing our security organisation into disrepute, we should now build into this Act those measures which will ensure that members from both sides of the House, whilst they may not necessarily be aware of everything, at least trust the organisation. In the closing moments of my contribution this evening I make the suggestion that I believe it is desirable for the Director-General of ASIO to be made answerable to members of this Parliament. I am not saying that he should be answerable to the whole Parliament. There should be perhaps a handful- say five- including highly respected and trusted senators and members of the Opposition, sworn to secrecy. They should swear that they will never divulge what they are told.

Mr Cotter:

– What rot!

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The honourable member for Kalgoorlie says: ‘What rot’. I have been told that his electorate is strewn with remnants of Skylab. He should get out and find them and leave this matter to people who have a long term interest in the subject. The group could be sworn to secrecy. It should act in a responsible way. If, after consultation in relation to the way in which ASIO was working, the group came to the conclusion that ASIO was not carrying out its responsibilities in the way in which it should, then instead of talking to the world, to the Parliament and the Press, it should carry out its very high and responsible position by consulting with the Director-General and the Attorney-General. It should say: ‘Well, really, if ASIO is to be a trusted organisation about which we have no fears, things should be done this way and with a little bit less pressure than is presently being applied.’ For instance, I could trust the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) as a person on such a body. There are senators and, of course, members on this side of the chamber who could be trusted. I make that suggestion, perhaps with only a passing hope that it might be acceptable. But I believe that would be a most worthwhile improvement to the Bill.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– This legislation- the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill and the cognate Billsprovides an opportunity for the Parliament to debate the need for a security organisation in Australia and to consider the nature and structure of that organisation and, more importantly, its role in Australian society. Already this debate largely has been concerned with the degree to which the legislation balances the need for adequate security on the one hand with the rights and the liberties of the Australian citizen on the other hand. The Australian Labor Party and the Opposition accepts as a principle that Australia, like every other modern nation state, requires a properly based security intelligence force to protect the nation. Whether we like it or not, the history of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, like that of other intelligence agencies in Western society, shows that it has often abused its role and the rights of the ordinary Australian citizen. Mr Justice Hope indicated at paragraph 1 17 of his report:

Material before me establishes that there have at times been departures by ASIO from . . .

He then mentioned principles, which he had previously outlined, as safeguarding the reputation of standards of freedom and democracy. Their justification has varied. Indeed, it is difficult somewhat now to determine the precise weight of the particular matters of justification. On page 127 of his report he cited the occasions on which ASIO had leaked information for political purposes to members of the public. There are instances where ASIO has leaked information for political purposes to members or supporters of the government of the day. I suppose that every member of this Parliament, on looking back at the record of ASIO, is aware of some circumstance in which the rights and the liberties of the ordinary Australian citizen have been abridged to some extent by these actions.

I was acquainted with a situation in my own State involving two prominent citizens. One of them was a migrant from the Greek community and the other a migrant from the Italian community. For years they were refused naturalisation on the basis of an adverse security report. It took a change of government for them to acquire that right. They are now two distinguished members of the Victorian Parliament. I was aware of the situation of a young man who had professional training, who was not normally politically active, who was a member of the Victorian Public Service and who applied for permanency in the Public Service. He had the backing and the support of his permanent head but was refused that appointment on the basis of an adverse security report. All the inquiries that I made- I accept the young man as being truthful- indicated that basically all that he had ever been involved in were one or two moratorium demonstrations. For particular family reasons he felt deeply about the issue involved, as did hundreds and thousands of other Victorian citizens. But because he involved himself in those demonstrations, the whole future of that young man was put in jeopardy. In every one of these cases the real problem was that there was no redress available to the individual concerned. There was no court to which he could go. There was no way in which he could have rectified a statement on his dossier that may have been completely untrue.

That sort of situation was also the subject of very strong and adverse comment by Mr Justice

White from South Australia in his inquiry. He looked at some 41,000 dossiers. Imagine the cost to the public of just accumulating that number of dossiers. Mr Justice White, in his inquiry into the situation in South Australia, found as follows:

I have seen a number of cards where information, patently false to my knowledge, has been used to the attempted disadvantage of certain persons . . .

My perusal of Special Branch files shows that many hundreds of people have done nothing more than take an active part in many causes which time and changing opinion have usually proved them to be right . . . campaigns against involvement in the Vietnam war or conscription for the purposes of that war, the importance of the environment and ecology and so on. They are the kinds of activities that active persons with a social conscience and a vision of a better Australia are entitled to be involved in without the brand of suspected subversion . . .

That is the way in which Mr Justice White found. He referred to a number of dossiers where the information was patently false, to his knowledge. Let us ally that finding with the information made available to the Parliament. The estimation made by the Australian Law Reform Commission, based on information supplied to the Parliament by the then Attorney-General in respect of telephone taps prior to the 12 months before 12 August 1973- the estimation was made not by the Labor Party but by the Australian Law Reform Commission- indicates that as many as 12,000 different people may have been the subject of official evesdropping on as many as 68,000 different occasions.

That is a gross and, in my view, unjustifiable erosion of the rights of the average Australian citizen going about his business, being involved in the workings of his own political system. Whether we like it or not, that is a history which this Parliament just cannot sweep under the table lightly and say: ‘Now we have got a new Director-General and it is all going to be all right from now on ‘. As I have already pointed out, the actions- often they are illegal- of the security forces adversely affected and caused loss and disadvantage to thousands of Australian citizens who had no redress by way of judicial scrutiny and no opportunity to right the real wrong that was done to them. That being the history of the matter, I believe that this Parliament ought to look at the situation frankly and that we should not pretend to ourselves that what so grievously occurred in the past could not possibly occur in the future. This Parliament now has a very clear duty and an obligation to see that it does not.

Any security intelligence gathering organisation in the discharge of its statutory duties, in my view, has a prime duty and a prime obligation to protect the rights and the liberties of the Australian citizen. There has been a tendency in drafting this legislation to argue that because of the high reputation and integrity of the present Director-General- I include the AttorneyGeneral as well- members of parliament ought to be satisfied with the present legislation. I for one do not accept that argument. I believe that legislation of this kind ought to stand in its own right and that there ought to be no presumption in its favour, no liberality of interpretation, simply because the character, the reputation and the integrity of the incumbent of the office of Director-General or, for that matter, the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, is high. This legislation is very critical to the proper operation of our security forces and, indeed, to the hard won rights of the ordinary Australian citizen. There should be no presumptions of liberality because we like the personality or the character of the Director-General, the present Attorney-General or any of those other people who as a result of their responsibilities have to be involved in weighing carefully important security decisions.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– You have to have some presumptions as to character, you know.

Mr HOLDING:

-Well, I listened to the honourable gentleman’s arguments earlier. The problem with him is that he believes it can be presumed that everybody on his side of the House is a decent, law-abiding citizen, and that everybody who disagrees with him and his somewhat narrow political views is not entitled to the benefit of that presumption. He tends to believe that people who disagree with him are likely to be subversive and ought properly to be the subject of some sort of security check.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– That is absolute nonsense.

Mr HOLDING:

– I listened to the honourable gentleman very carefully. I was concerned to hear him argue so illogically that the same sorts of standards and prescriptions that apply to a company or a trade union- which is a public organisation, a voluntary organisation, like a company, with rules laid down- ought to apply to a security service, in the face of the findings of Mr Justice White and Mr Justice Hope and in the face of all the body of accumulated evidence that the laws have been broken and the rights of the ordinary citizen have been transgressed. Try as the honourable gentleman may, he cannot sweep those facts under the carpet. Therefore I say that this is an opportunity when one does not make the sorts of glib presumptions which in the past have eroded the rights of the ordinary Australian citizen.

The thrust of the Opposition’s amendments is designed to ensure that this legislation is carefully weighed and considered. We have done this by preparing a series of amendments. We will argue in the Committee stage that the present definition of ‘subversion’ is too wide. I would say that it is probably wide enough to encompass all those people who presently quite legitimately are engaged in political opposition to the concept of uranium mining. In this second reading speech I want to concentrate not so much on the arguments that are more appropriate to the Committee stage but on pointing out how much of the thrust of our amendments goes to the whole question of supervision and accountability. Basically that involves four major propositions. First of all, it involves strengthening the role of the Minister, and I would say that that is very much in accordance with the great traditions of Westminster. Ultimately, any security structure has to be responsible to the Minister, the Minister has to be accountable to Cabinet, and Cabinet has to be accountable to Parliament. There are certain matters which obviously are matters of discretion and security and there is a clearly established parliamentary procedure by which the Minister will not disclose information or give answers which he believes go to the question of the security of the nation. But surely there can be no argument in Australia in 1979 that we need to be strengthening not merely the institution of Parliament but the whole concept of ministerial responsibility.

Our second thrust involves the direct involvement of the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that that is a safe, wise and prudent precaution because our parliamentary system is a system of checks and balances. Under our parliamentary system, the Leader of the Opposition today can easily be the Prime Minister tomorrow. Without taking a short term, politically sectarian attitude, I believe that it is appropriate and proper that on these matters that go to the whole question of national security the Leader of the Opposition, whoever he may be, ought to be properly involved and the consultation ought to be real and effective.

We have also raised the question of a permanent, independent and periodic judicial review. The honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) was concerned about that. But are we proposing anything more than a periodic investigation of the kind made by Mr Justice Hope, an updating of his report? That would not trammel the security service. Does anybody believe that the Hope report weakened and eroded the basis of our security intelligence organisation? I have not heard that argued, not by one member in this debate. All we are proposing, as part of the permanent fabric of this legislation, is that in order to keep our security service on the rails, instead of there being a casual exercise, depending upon the whim of the government of the day, there is a permanent and on-going process by which the Parliament, the government and the people of Australia can be informed. What we have also argued is that there has to be auditing accountability through the Auditor-General. No-one is suggesting that the Auditor-General is going to check every voucher for tea money. What it means is a general accounting, supervising role. It is as simple as that. That was recommended by Mr Justice Hope.

The suggestion has also been made that this legislation ought to go to a legislation committee. I, for one, strongly support that suggestion. I find it extraordinary, in a Parliament of this kind, that when we get a piece of legislation that amends the companies Act or the patents Act, and therefore affects corporate and commercial relationships, we have a parliamentary committee examining fairly technical and often complex problems of commercial law. Is there anything more important than the relationship that ought to exist between this Parliament, the Executive, the security and intelligence service and the people of Australia? Given the complexities and the needs for checks and balances in that situation, is there any more pressing set of questions which could be quite properly examined by a legislation committee consisting of members from both sides of the House? I do not necessarily say that a committee will find all the answers, but I do believe that it would serve one very important purpose; it might serve the purpose of endeavouring to lift our security and intelligence organisation out of the traditional, historic role of party politics which is part of its history.

It is time that this Parliament looked at the importance and the relevance of this legislation and the sort of role that needs to be performed by our security intelligence organisation. I believe that that is a good suggestion. Has it been suggested by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), who is in charge of this legislation, that these issues are too complex for a legislation committee, or is he suggesting, on the other hand, that they are too simple, and do not need to be examined? I believe that this legislation is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to come before this Parliament. I think that it has to be said, frankly, that what is seen by the government of today as subversive, whether it be a Labor government, or a Liberal government or any sort of combination (Quorum formed). I was making the point that what is seen by the government of today as subversive, can become by tomorrow an act of statesmanship. The best example of that is the attitude of the leadership of this Government towards China. Unfortunately, it is true in many cases that a leader in the Third World who today can simply be dismissed as a terrorist, by historic precedent can become a Prime Minister or a President tomorrow. This Parliament needs legislation which will ensure not only that our security intelligence service can play its role effectively in a complex and continually changing international and national situation but also that that security service does not simply pay lip service to the rhetoric of civil liberties but by its very charter gives meaning to the checks and balances which would make that service -

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

Mr McVEIGH:
Darling Downs

– These Bills have received a great amount of public debate as well as close scrutiny in the Senate. It can be rightfully and truthfully said that they reflect the democratic process. Indeed, it would be appropriate to acknowledge the constructive, non-partisan approach of the Senate and to congratulate all senators who participated in the debate on their well reasoned approaches- the product of detailed, critically constructive outlook coupled with inquiring minds. I would say that the Senate has done the nation a great service. May the debate in this chamber be of the same high standard.

Reference needs to be made in this debate to the approach of the Australian Labor Party. I stress that members of the Australian Labor Party in the Senate adopted a national approach and I hope that Labor Party members in this chamber will do the same. Their approach and outlook were vastly different from their organisational consensus at the Launceston conference of the Australian Labor Party in 1971. On that occasion there was a tied vote- 22 to 22- on a motion by one of the delegates that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation be abolished altogether. The ALP at that stage wanted to abolish ASIO altogether. Labor rules in such circumstances state that the motion be lost. Reports from that meeting indicate that one of the main opponents of the motion was Senator Lionel Murphy, now a justice of the High Court of Australia. Many Australians remember him, as the honourable member for Fadden (Mr

Donald Cameron) said, not as a senator but as the Minister who in the quietness of the night led an assault on the offices of ASIO in Melbourne.

Mr Braithwaite:

– Shame!

Mr McVEIGH:

– The honourable member for Dawson says: ‘Shame’. All Australians share his sentiments. This action is recorded in our history as the greatest invasion of security possible and a violation of human rights. It raises doubts about the sincerity of those who sat with the then Senator Murphy in the then government and who now claim to be the defenders of civil liberties. I might include the last speaker, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding), in those remarks. He spoke about civil liberties. I remind him that the greatest invasion of civil liberties was an assault led by a Minister of his party. Perhaps these gentlemen are really wearing false labels and in effect are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

This legislation follows from the report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security commissioned by the Hon. E. G. Whitlam. Let us pay tribute to him. He of course did not share the views of many of his colleagues on this issue. So it is fitting to acknowledge his role in the legislation we are now discussing. His action and the tabling of the Hope report by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for the first time enabled this Parliament- and through the Parliament the people of Australia- to be accurately advised of the background and needs of the Australian security system. The needs are crystal clear. We need a highly competent professional system of intelligence and a security service to ensure that our country and way of life are not imperilled. We cannot limit the operations of that system in line with the sentiments expressed by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. This brings me to the first point- one of philosophywhich I submit needs to be made. Mr Justice Hope, in paragraph 10 of his fourth report, stated: . . that a balance between the rights of individual persons and the preservation of the security of Australia as a nation is no simple or easy thing to achieve.

He concluded, quoting from the 1975 Rockefeller report, by stating: . . in the final analysis, public-safety and individual liberty sustain each other.

Mr Justice Hope also stated that he rejects the view that espionage is not a significant problem in Australia. He especially warned:

Australia must not be so naive as to think that it has some exemption from clandestine operations.

Dealing with domestic subversive activity, he said:

The amount of domestic subversive activity in Australia has varied from time to time. The material before me does not establish that there is a very large amount at present.

That extract is taken from paragraph 76 of the fourth report. Paragraph 77 states:

As against this, the two main communist parties, the Communist Party of Australia and the Socialist Party of Australia, have strong influence in some unions. They exercise a power greatly in excess of that which their numbers would justify, among other reasons because they often strongly support the interests of trade unionists and put their full force behind industrial issues. At other times, they make use of industrial disputes for their own political purposes. The Trotskyists and other left radical groups are active in academic and political areas and are succeeding in establishing themselves in many places of influence. Right radical groups are still active and the basis for extreme right wing action is certainly not dormant.

Granted that there are problems, it is necessary for us to ensure that any techniques adopted do not infringe fundamental human rights and privileges. Essentially we must remember that ASIO is an intelligence organisation; it is not a court of justice. It is not apart from the law but is part of the law and is subject to the constraints of balance in ensuring that the common and various statute laws are not infringed. Opponents of the legislation are assured that before ASIO can exercise its powers in any particular or general situation, the Director-General, who is appointed only after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition for the time being, must- I stress that it is mandatory- make a formal request to the Attorney-General, who must be satisfied that the request is reasonable before he will issue a warrant. This appears to all thinking and reasonable Australians to guarantee adequate safeguards. People express the view from time to time- one appreciates that they hold honest, concerned views- that there should be no restraint on a person’s liberty to do what he believes is his will and right. This assertion is based on a false understanding of the principles of liberty as espoused in the three essays by Mill entitled On Liberty. Perhaps the real situation is as described by Benn and Peters at page 2 13 of Social Principles of the Democratic State wherein they wrote: lt is a paradox of freedom, that we must set a constraint to catch a constraint.

Mill, in his essay, stated:

  1. . all restraint, qua restraint is an evil, other things being equal, it is always better to leave people to themselves to pursue their good as they sec it than to subject them to controls.

This premise rests on the notion that individuals should be treated as ends in themselves, and not as means to others’ ends. I suppose that this could be described as the principle of moral equality. But Mill qualifies his statement when he writes:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted individually and collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

This leads us to the question of how do we define actions which are harmful to others and to the body corporate- the Australian nation. The Government believes- I fully support its viewthat for purposes of social restraint and national security it is necessary to have the legal rules as contained in the various Bills we are debating. Of course, there can be differences of opinion whether the law goes far enough or too far. Some in the community have taken the view- quite wrongly in my opinion- that the various clauses in the Bills are not the appropriate instruments for dealing with the mischief sought to be suppressed and they have questioned the propriety of the particular legal rules which have been proposed and which I hope will be adopted by this Parliament. It appears to me that their fears are ill-founded. Firstly, common law has guaranteed the rights of the individual to such an extent that there has been no successful prosecution for sedition in England for over 100 years. In 1947 the editor of the Morecombe and Herpham Visitor published an attack on British Jewry for tacit support of outrages against British soldiers in Israel. The jury acquitted him. I mention this to illustrate that offences are somewhat frequent but successful prosecutions are rare. I fail to see the argument advanced by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports who spoke about the interpretation of subversive action being far too wide. The facts prove otherwise. Additionally two cases in Australia come to mind involving the Commonwealth Crimes Act. They were Burns v. Ranley, 1 949, 79 Commonwealth Law Reports 101 and Regina v. Sharkey, 1949, Commonwealth Law Reports 121 in which both Burns and Sharkey were convicted. It would appear that the operations of ASIO established in 1 956 have resulted in safeguarding our security through its modus operandi.

Some have suggested that information should be conveyed to Parliament from time to time. I reject this view. There arc adequate safeguards. Indeed, on balance there are precedents which were, of course, broken by the Labor Party’s representative Mr Kep Enderby in an answer to question No. 241 in the House of Representatives in 1973. I much prefer the statesman-like approach of the then . Attorney-General, Mr

Nigel Bowen in the debate in the House of Representatives on 24 August 1967 in which at page 404 of Hansard he said that he would rely on the practice of neither affirming nor denying a particular interception.

Mr Baillieu:

– Hear, hear!

Mr McVEIGH:

-I agree; he followed precedent. He would not divulge information as the Labor Party did. Similarly, on 17 March 1971 as recorded at page 1065 of the House of Representatives Hansard the then AttorneyGeneral Mr T. Hughes in answer to a question from the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden)- we on this side support the view held by the then Attorney-General- said:

In accordance with established practice from which departures are made only in exceptional circumstances (which in my judgment do not exist here) I do not propose to answer questions about the . . . alleged operations of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. It does not follow, however, that any of the assumptions made by the honourable mem ber for the purposes of his question is correct.

The honourable member for Oxley had asked whether ASIO had to obtain permission from the Attorney-General or any Minister or Government official before it opened and scrutinised the contents of the mail contract. The declared policy of the Government is consistent with its responsibility to security as opposed to the open policy adopted by the Labor Party’s representative, the Honourable Kep Enderby, as I have already illustrated. All thinking Australians who are concerned about the security of the nation would adopt the policy of the Government in office prior to 1972 which is the policy being pursued under this legislation as opposed to the blaring out of information by the Honourable Kep Enderby.

Mr Innes:

– Pimps and bludgers.

Mr McVEIGH:

– There is no sense in the honourable member getting upset. These are the facts. I have given the Hansard references. The honourable member can look them up. I suggest that the honourable member would be better employed in endeavouring to change the opinions of the honourable members who serve with him. In all discussions one must be mindful of the statement by the Conference of Privy Councillors in 1956 which states:

It is right to continue the practice of tilting the balance in favour of offering greater protection to the security of the State, rather than in the direction of the safeguarding the rights of the individual.

I repeat that the Conference of Privy Councillors- the greatest legal authority- has said that it would favour protection for the security of the State rather than safeguarding the rights of the individual. It would behove members of the Opposition to agree with that eminent opinion from the top legal brains in the British Commonwealth. This legislation aims to preserve and cement the sentiments of that profoundly logical statement. The quandary we face in legislation of this type is the same for all governments which operate security systems. Open discussion on these fundamental matters will prejudice investigations. Disclosure of reports often means disclosure of sources which then dry up and become useless. The final point on which I desire to comment relates to that section of the legislation dealing with security assessments. Most Australians surveyed would compliment the Government on its decision that ASIO’s security assessments should be subject to an appeals system. The steps are fair, just and applicable. I particularly applaud clause 61 of the ASIO Bill which reads: 61. (1) Where an assessment has been reviewed by the Tribunal, every Commonwealth agency concerned with prescribed administrative action to which the assessment is relevant, and any tribunal, person or authority having power to hear appeals from, or to review, a decision with respect to any prescribed administrative action to which the assessment is relevant, shall treat the findings of the Tribunal, to the extent that they do not confirm the assessment, as superseding that assessment.

  1. Where a law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory (other than the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977) provides that a class of decisions that an authority or person is authorized or required to make in respect of prescribed administrative action is subject to appeal or review and empowers a tribunal, body or person to reverse or vary such a decision, or to direct the reversal or variation of such a decision, as a result of an appeal or review, the findings of the Security Appeals Tribunal on a relevant review under this Part are binding on that authority or person in making such a decision, and are also binding on that tribunal, body or person in exercising powers in or in connection with an appeal or review in respect of such a decision.

This clause appears to me to guarantee the rights of any person who may be aggrieved in relation to any assessment made of him under the ASIO legislation. It appears to me that proper safeguards have been written into the legislation. I conclude by saying that Australia has secrets which the Australian Government has a duty to protect in the interests of the nation. I hope people realise that this legislation has received a great amount of scrutiny in the Senate, in the Press and by the general public at large. We must at all times remember that the security of our nation is of fundamental importance to the preservation of our way of life. Whilst people may be offended when their personal and civil liberties are put under challenge and threat, we must remember that on balance because the people make up the nation it is essential that the nation is secured to enable men and women to live in a free society. It appears to me that there is absolutely no cause for concern about threats to civil liberties under any part of this legislation. The safeguards are adequate. The approval of the Minister is required for ASIO to obtain the issue of warrants for the making of inquiries. Mention has been made of people’s being concerned about authorities knocking on their doors in the middle of the night. If people have a free conscience there is absolutely no need for them to fear that this will happen. If a person is guilty of an act of espionage, why should he not also have the additional problem of living with his own conscience and living in fear of a raid which can be carried out only under the relevant legislation? It is also worth reminding people that the Director-General is required to consult very closely with the Minister and that the Leader of the Opposition has access in certain instances to confidential information. There are adequate safeguards. In the final analysis, there is nothing that must not be done to safeguard the security of our great Australian nation.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Contrary to the contentions of the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) there are many anxieties in the community about the far-reaching nature of the provisions of this legislation. It seems to me that the amendments moved by the Opposition are conducive to allaying the widespread fears about this package deal of legislation.

Mr Baillieu:

– In what way?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honourable gentleman asks: ‘In what way?’. I will take a few minutes to explain it to him. Obviously he has not been following the debate. Ten major issues are raised by the Opposition’s amendments. The first is to the effect that annual reports about the operation of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation ought to be presented to the Parliament. Surely that is a reasonable proposition. So far no one has put up any case against it. The second proposal is that there ought to be regular periodic judicial auditing to ensure that ASIO is complying with its charter, that it is not infringing civil liberties and that it is operating efficiently and effectively. I do not think anybody would say that we could make a mistake if we pursued such a course. Thirdly, there is a contention by the Opposition that the Minister, or the Parliament through the Minister, should be fully informed about the activities of ASIO, not just in respect of the matters to which he directs inquiries but all matters. We propose that the Leader of the Opposition at any time, the alternative

Prime Minister of the country, should be periodically briefed on all aspects of ASIO. Does anybody think that that is unreasonable? It is not so regarded in the United States or comparable countries around the world.

We then propose that there should be proper financial accountability by ASIO. That seems to happen in respect of most governmental instrumentalities. Why exclude ASIO from that well established practice? We propose that there should be a better definition of security and subversion. These are the dragnet provisions, the ambiguous provisions, about which there is such far-reaching anxiety in the community. We want to ensure that any tendency to misapplication can be minimised. We also propose that there be a restriction of the circumstances in which warrants may be issued. We propose that the appeal provisions be retrospective. If there is any merit in having them now why should they not be retrospective to take up any disadvantage or unfairness that people in the community have suffered? I cannot see any opposition or spontaneous indignation on the part of any honourable gentleman opposite. We propose that no person should be denied notification of the existence of an adverse security assessment. That is reasonable enough. After all, who can defend himself unless this much is made known to him? Lastly, we propose to restrict the circumstances involving the safety of a security officer and the offence of disclosing an officer’s identity. That seems to be a far-reaching provision.

The Opposition does not oppose the existence of ASIO. In fact, we recognise the need for new legislation to govern the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. We have done so for many years. We have helped to breathe life into the processes that have brought things to the stage where the legislation is again under the spotlight. However, the Opposition believes that the legislation should be withdrawn and redrafted because of significant omissions and because it fails to provide a basis for the establishment of a bipartisan security service. The legislation has already been debated in the Senate. In that place we proposed that it be withdrawn. The Government has refused to accede to this request although some relatively minor amendments to the original legislation were accepted. By refusing the reasonable request of the Opposition, it seems to me that the Government has deliberately preferred a partisan approach to security matters. That is a very unfortunate development.

Before raising some of the specific objections to this legislation it is important to note that this package deal of Bills should not be viewed in isolation. Since taking office in 1975, this Government has been very active in passing a series of measures which restrict or reduce the economic and political freedom of the individual, restrict the legitimate action of trade unions, suppress information or access to information and limit the freedom of travel to and from Australia. In short, legislation has been passed by this Government which has seriously eroded civil liberties in Australia. I will give some examples. The Fraser Government has created the repressive Industrial Relations Tribunal. It has amended the Trade Practices Act, especially the iniquitous and provocative section 45D to allow workers to be stood down if affected by the strike action of other workers. It steamrolled through Parliament the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill which undermines the alleged political neutrality of the Public Service and allows for the forced retirement of public servants at any age, regardless of their performance.

In addition, the Government has elected to proceed, contrary to the recommendations of the Fox Commission, with the mining of uranium at Ranger under the repressive Atomic Energy Act and the related Approved Defence Projects Protection Act. It has also prevented the Australian Bureau of Statistics from providing statistics on foreign ownership and participation studies of sections of the Australian economy. It has amended the Migration Act and the Passport Act to limit the freedom of entry to and exit from Australia. It is in this context that this Government’s uncompromising attitude towards the ASIO Bills should be viewed. The legislation, if passed without further amendments, will seriously undermine civil liberties in Australia. It is more pernicious in this regard than the odious anti-march legislation in Queensland and the anti-assembly legislation in Western Australia.

The ASIO legislation runs directly contrary to overseas trends. In the United States there has been increasing scrutiny of security organisations and federal police forces. The United States public, disturbed with the revelations that became known as Watergate, the seemingly unrestrained political intervention of the Central Intelligence Agency and the often repressive activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has demanded that action be taken to make these organisations ultimately accountable to the public. Two important reports can be called to mind in this regard. The Church and Pike reports in the United States have disclosed the para-legal activities of these organisations and have provided the framework for legislative action to curb the excesses of the organisations and to limit thenpowers.

There is evidence in Australia that organisations or sections within organisations have breached their specific charters. I will give some examples. Firstly, there are those in the report on special branch activities in South Australia by Commissioner White. Then, of course, there are those in the report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security- the Hope Report.

The Fraser Government has decided to place virtually no legal limit on the activities of ASIO, and that is where the Opposition falls out with the Government. We feel that there ought to be some limits. Instead of following the United States example and limiting the powers of ASIO and at least making it accountable to this Parliament and to the people, the Fraser Government has decided to do the opposite and to extend the powers of the Organisation. Australia is emulating not the United States example, but rather the example of the repressive regimes of South America- of Chile, Argentina and Bolivia. If all the other so-called security organisations operating in Australia take the powers vested by the legislation as a blueprint for their activity, there will be a serious curbing of legitimate political activity in this country. As Mr Justice Hope warned:

Democracy thrives on non-violent differences of opinion and attitudes.

Just let me say that the antithesis is that democracy is dead if differences of opinion are suppressed. Mr Justice Hope also said:

A security organisation must be careful to avoid mistaking mere dissent or non-conformity for subversion.

In summary, let me say that the Opposition rejects this ASIO Bill because it places ASIO beyond ministerial responsibility. The proper relationship between the Minister and a government instrumentality has been overturned. Section 8 of this legislation for the first time empowers the Director-General of ASIO- who, after all, is a public servant- to override the Minister who, to all intents and purposes, is elected by the people. He can do so ‘on the question whether the collection of intelligence . . concerning a particular individual would … be justified by reason of its relevance to security’; he can do so ‘on the question whether a communication of intelligence . . would be for a purpose relevant to security’; and he can do so on the question of determining ‘the nature of the advice that should be given by the Organisation to a Minister, Department or authority of the Commonwealth’.

The Minister in charge of ASIO does not have ministerial authority over the actions of the Director-General in the crucial areas relating to who should be investigated and who should get the information. That position is totally unacceptable to the Labor Party and, I believe, to the majority of Australians. It is quite unacceptable that information can be prepared and activity continued for a purpose other than advising the Australian government of the day. In the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security, Mr Justice Hope found that in the final analysis Ministers are the ones for whom intelligence advice is produced.

The Opposition also objects to a wide range of activity- phone tapping surveillance, the entering of premises, et cetera- in which ASIO will be legally able to engage because of the definition of ‘subversion’ in the Bill. No relationship will be immune to the snooping, the eavesdropping and the telephone tapping facilitated by this legislation; not that of a parliamentarian and his constituent, that of a parishioner and his priest; that of a lawyer and his client; or that of a doctor and his patient. No longer is any such relationship sacrosanct if the director of security has the idea that one party to any of those relationships ought to be suspected. Those contentions were made by honourable members on the other side of the House long ago, when civil liberties were far more important to the Liberal and Country Parties than they are today. Back in the 1 950s, when the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Bill was under debate, the terminology to which I have just referred was the parlance of the then Government, and not just of the Opposition.

Mr Baillieu:

– Do you believe that?

Mr Cotter:

– You are living in butterfly land.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-It was those intrusions into people’s privacy which gave concern to your predecessors- the people who sat on those benches before you did. Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak not of you but of those who interject. They have lost their sensitivity in respect of such matters.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)Order! I remind the honourable member ibr Hughes not to be fussed about the interjections. He should address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, that is a very profound ruling and it does you great credit. Section 5 ( 1 ) (a) of the Bill defines subversion’ as:

  1. . activities that involve, will involve or lead to, or are intended or likely ultimately to involve or lead to, the use of force or violence or other unlawful acts (whether by those persons or by others ) for the purpose of overthrowing or destroying the constitutional government of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory:

The phrase ‘likely ultimately to involve or lead to, the use of force or violence or other unlawful acts’ is so wide as to permit ASIO to involve itself in gathering information on, spying on, et cetera, any individual on the basis that that individual is associated with, comes in contact with, or in the past associated with a person who is the subject of surveillance. Who could reasonably expect to be immune forever from that kind of dragnet? For example, a club member could be placed under surveillance because of the unknown activities of another club member. One cannot help but be frightened to think of what might happen on the campus of a university.

The Opposition in the Senate attempted to restrict the definition by removing the word ultimately’ from the definition. This was not accepted by the Government. The only minor concession made by the Government in respect of the definition of ‘subversion’ was to accept the replacement in clause 5 ( 1 ) (c) of the word ‘hostility ‘ with the word ‘hatred ‘. Thus activities considered to be subversive are also: . . activities directed to promoting violence or hatred between different groups of persons in the Australian community so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth.

Clearly the concession is not substantial. The definition obviously remains far too broad. The powers to enter premises, to search for records, to use listening devices, and to open and inspect postal articles should not be based on such a vague, all-inclusive definition. The definition should be more restrictive and the legislation should contain checks and balances guaranteeing that the civil rights of the individual are not infringed.

The legislation in fact does not even contain the normal checks and balances required by other government instrumentalities. The Director-General’s annual report on ASIO’s expenditure and activities need not be presented to Parliament. The Labor Party believes that ASIO’s annual report should be tabled each year and should contain, in broad terms, information such as the number of warrants issued by the Attorney-General or the Director-General for telephone tapping, mail interception and house entering. We want to know the extent to which this kind of practice becomes the order of the day under a government that seems to treat so indifferently the civil liberties and rights of Australian citizens. It should also contain an audit of ASIO’s expenditure for the year. After all, last financial year $ 12.5m was made available, which was an increase of 50 per cent over the preceding two years. The 1979 Budget gives ASIO $ 14.2m, and the Australian Security Intelligence Service $8.3m.

Members of the Liberal Party in the Senate were of the opinion that some check should be placed on ASIO in this area. However, the Government has made only the trivial concession of allowing the Leader of the Opposition access to ASIO’s annual report. So partisan was the original legislation that the Parliamentary Opposition Leader- the alternative Prime Minister of this country- was not even -

Mr Birney:

– Ha!

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Well, at any time the alternative Prime Minister of this country is not even to be consulted or informed on security matters, or to be given the opportunity to express an opinion on future appointments to the position of Director-General of ASIO. There has been a jettisoning of responsibility and obligation. No country in the world would put a public servant in such an onerous position at this Government proposes to do in respect of the Director-General of ASIO. I say to the Government: Shoulder that responsibility yourself. No director-general wants this onerous position. Nobody wants to be the figurehead of the curtailment of liberties.

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

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Naturally I listened with care and attention to what was said by my predecessor in this debate, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson), but his knowledge of history is pretty remote. He should know that when the first Chifley-Evatt statement was made in 1949 there were no qualifications or reservations at all about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. ASIO did not have to report to anyone, including the Prime Minister. There was no method by which there could be a review of action taken by it or by which any protest made -

Mr Young:

– That was a mistake.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– May be. This is tremendously important. Then the honourable member for Hughes said that there has been no change since 1952. That is true, but he ought to recognise that since 1952 the means of carrying out espionage and sabotage have so improved that if the Government did not make changes it does not deserve to be in government. The Australian Labor Party did not make changes in the period from 1973 to 1975, and it deserved to go out of government. It will stay in Opposition. It is rather regrettable that he should have gone on in this peculiar way. In the last few statements that the honourable member made relating to the function and operations of ASIO, he showed that the Australian Labor Party is prepared to ignore the main issues and the main problems involved and degenerating the debate into the most flimsy arguments in order to try to win some political support from its left wing associates. I mentioned this with a sense of shame and pity because I think we should try, as far as is reasonably practicable, to make certain that we approach a matter like this on a bipartisan basis. We should try to get co-operation if we can. We should ensure when we are looking at security matters that we do so knowing that we believe in the declaration of human rights; that we want to protect the privacy of the individual and his right to conduct his own life in his own way, provided always that he works within the law. That also means that he works within the law so far as security is concerned.

My main purpose in speaking tonight is to recommend strongly to the Government, even though the recommendation may have no strength at all- from what I have heard it will have none- that it refer this matter to a parliamentary committee. I believe it is essential. We in this House know that the Senate can refer its proposals for change to a committee of the Senate- it can deal with matters on that basisyet we here, members of the House of initiation, the House that is not a House of review or a State House, cannot. It is this House that should be responsible for the initiatives on every important issue. It should consider them in detail. We ought to have the opportunity to debate such matters across the table at a legislation committee meeting. It is not practicable or possible in this House to debate measures at all. We get up and make political or other speeches and we forget the necessity for doing the best we can. In all the parliamentary committees I have been on I have been delighted with the standard of debate, despite the shortness of dme that we have had to study the Bills. In the drugs debate, the last one in this House, we got the papers at 10 p.m. and by 10.30 the next morning we were supposed to understand 40 pages. One has to be a person like myself, with 30 years of political life and used to not sleeping at night time if necessary, to read that Bill. I did not think that even the Minister knew everything that was in it when he came before us and had to answer questions. But we were successful.

I think back to 1954 when I replied to Dr Evatt, then Leader of the Opposition. He did not protest about the security Bill then. He had only one objection which was that if there were to be any dismissals from the services the matter ought to go to a special inquiry. This shows the shallowness of so many of the arguments that have been mentioned. I can speak on this matter because I was Minister for the Navy, Minister for Air, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Prime Minister. Apart from the prime ministership, when I flopped, I was considered to be a success in those portfolios. I put my honesty right on the table. Anyone can pick it up and say what they like about it. Nonetheless, I am happy enough to be able to speak upon this Bill now.

I see no reason for urgency, and have never heard anyone who can justify rushing it through. Was it rushed through before the Budget? Was it rushed through the Senate? Why should this House, which ought to be the dominant influence in the country, be rushed? There it is.

There are three matters that I want to consider as well as I can. The first one relates to the actual functions of ASIO. Before speaking on this point I must mention that when I was Foreign Minister and later Prime Minister I had my worries about ASIO and, for that matter, about the entire joint intelligence organisation and what they chose to call M09. 1 thought that was the greatest farce in history. Whilst I was Prime Minister I never once got a report from the then Director-General. I had to parade him in front of me. I questioned him for some hours. I said: ‘Could you tell me what it is all about? What are you doing? I have never had a report’.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He wouldn’t tell you.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I wish you would keep quiet. I at least had the good manners to listen to you, painful though it was. When he left I remember putting my head in my hands and thinking: There was the deaf and dumb ma in that lovely play ‘Don ‘t Kill the Mocking Bird ‘. I could not find out what the intelligence organisation was about. I had to go to the New South Wales Police Force to find out about a series of alleged Croat offences. I found then that it was purely a domestic dispute. I also remember that when the American forces marched into Cambodia, north of the Parrot’s Beak, I asked ASIO to give me the Vietnamese signal intercepts. They were given to me. The Americans were going to have a tremendous victory but when they got there the headquarters of the signal organisation, which was to be objective of the operation, had never been there. Because of instances like this one becomes suspicious. I believe that the member of Parliament has a role to play. I believe that experienced people ought to be taken some notice of. It is up to the Cabinet to do so, particularly when the advice comes from those on this side of the House with experience.

Let me speak about the functions of ASIO. I gave evidence about its functions to the Hope Royal Commission. I say without qualification that the Hope Commission followed most religiously the recommendations that I made. In his report Mr Justice Hope implied that ASIO may have exceeded its powers and engaged in activities irrelevant to its functions and which may have impinged on individual freedom. He went on to say that ASIO has been guilty in the past of departures from its basic functions. I knew it had. This can happen again. Anyone with any great knowledge of life knows that if a person is in a job for too long he is apt to change; he is apt to suffer from hardening of the mental arteries; he is apt to get himself into a position where he believes he knows better than anyone else. In the four years from 1968 to 1972 instances occurred over and over again which led me to the conclusion that Defence and other sections of the bureaucracy felt that there was no need to let Cabinet or the Prime Minister know what was going on. For that reason, naturally I have my doubts.

Mr Young:

– They haven’t changed.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Will you give me extra time?

Mr Young:

– Yes, I will. They haven ‘t changed.

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Having said that, let me get to the points that I want to make. I wish first of all to evaluate clause 17 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill, which relates to the function of ASIO. It states that one of the functions is to obtain, correlate and evaluate intelligence. Nobody could ever doubt the relevance of those matters to ASIO and ASIO alone. They are within ASIO’s powers and I do not believe that it should suffer any interference in that regard from the Parliament or any other sources. Another function is to communicate matters relevant to security in accordance with the law. That relates to communication between the various government departments and ASIO in accordance with the law as set out in clause 17. Another function is to advise Ministers and authorities of the Commonwealth in respect of matters relating to security insofar as those matters are relevant to their functions and responsibilities.

Both of the latter functions are matters of great political importance. I believe that there must be some surveillance or accountability in this respect. I believe that we ought in committee to be prepared at least to listen to arguments that support the case for making accountability necessary. I certainly would not suggest that we should do as somebody mentioned today, much to my surprise, that is, have recourse to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Heavens above, we do not want any more Deverall decisions. But I do believe that we could quite easily have recourse to a justice of the Federal Court of Australia- not to a Supreme Court of a State or anyone else but to a justice of the Federal Court of Australia- in matters such as this. After a little while it would take no effort to look at the situation once a year and make a report. I do not believe that the report should be made to the Parliament. I do not believe that it should be made to anyone but government. That government, in its wisdom, might then be able to give a summary to the House.

I have known a former Attorney-General to go out and make an assault on ASIO headquarters. It was an attack which should never have been tolerated. There was no rebuke. Afterwards he was entertained in more salubrious circumstances than he ever experienced here. I know of another occasion- I know of it because I was sitting here- when there was a revelation about the conduct of individuals which could have been criminal and could have been subversive. Of course I do not want information floating all over the place. I do not like the computers having any of this information, and I do not like them having such information in drug cases, because one can buy one’s way into the output of computer technology. I honestly believe that that could happen in those cases.

I refer again to the functions of ASIO and the qualifications set out in the Bill. Normally, as we know, the responsible Minister has a right of control, but he cannot overrule. The honourable member for Hughes had it all mixed up. The Minister cannot overrule. He said that the Director-General can overrule. That shows how little he knows about it, and he was constrained in reading his speech that somebody had prepared read for him. He had no feeling of sincerity. He had no feeling that he was committed to a doctrine, to a philosophy, and that he believed in the liberal principles and a liberal approach and attitude to life.

As to whether the collection of intelligence relating to individuals is justified, I do not believe that anyone should interfere in this matter. It is a matter for security. If we have doubts we can always as a parliament and as a government, if it is a government of the Fraser kind, take action to see that there is some inquiry to ascertain whether ASIO has acted properly and whether the communication of intelligence relating to the individual is justified.

As to the nature of the advice given to the Minister, I do not think it is right and proper that it should be the Director-General who decides on the nature of advice to be given in the communications that take place between ASIO and the government and its agencies, such as the Department of Defence. I do not believe in that. My experience is that in cases like this there must be some judicial authority that can look at the situation and say: ‘Look, mate, let us discuss this’. There can be nothing better than discussion. No Director-General that I have known, other than the one before the present one, could ever resist a discussion whenever he had the opportunity to do so. If we can discuss these matters and satisfy ourselves that what is happening is proper, right and within the law and that the best thing is being done, no comment will need to be made. But if a member of the Federal Court comes to the conclusion otherwise, surely it is proper that the Prime Minister of this country should know. It does not matter whether that Prime Minister is Liberal or Labor. He is there, he is elected and he has the responsibility. If he shirks it, it is up to the members of the public to show their response when the next election takes place.

I turn now to the last two matters to which I wish to refer. The first of them is the definition of the word ‘subversion’. Most of the arguments about the definition of the word ‘subversion’ are well known. I must say that over the four years that I was looking intently at the matter I was driven to the conclusion, although I disliked it, that there was too much concentration in specificareas where I did not think that subversion, sabotage or anything similar was involved. I refer to such things as the actions of a peace movement where no violence is involved or the actions of a student organisation or some of the right wing sections of the trade union movement. I exclude the people associated with the Builders Labourers Federation and similar organisations that cannot be tolerated in any society which regards itself as a democracy and which places power in the hands of the Government to take action against conduct contrary to the best interests of the country.

Again I ask: Why should it be that the Director-General or any member of his staff has the right of interpretation? Mr Justice Hope said about the general level of political sophistication inside ASIO that he saw little evidence that the qualities of mind and expertise needed in intelligence assemblies were recognised in any large measure. I do not accuse ASIO of this today, but it can happen again. Therefore, we have to be prepared to ensure that we have the greatest protection possible for the individuals.

The third part of the definition of ‘subversion’ states: . . activities directed to promoting violence or hatred between different groups of persons . . . so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth.

As honourable members probably know, the words ‘peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth’ appear in the introduction to the various placita in section 5 1 of the Constitution. When I was Minister for Labour and National Service, I tried to test what was meant by peace, order and good government. I thought that the members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission must always be guided not by the need to settle industrial disputes but to ensure that there was peace, order and good government and that the law of the government had to prevail when the interests of the nation were greater than those of the need to settle an industrial dispute. I was rebuked for my strange ability to concoct new methods of looking at the arbitration laws.

I emphasise that I believe that this matter needs to be looked at. For that reason I should like it to be referred to a legislation committee. Many honourable members spent a long time thinking about and working on the Customs legislation concerning drug trafficking even before it was referred to a legislation committee. I believe that drug addiction is a matter of national concern. Generations of young people are being subverted and destroyed by this dreadful menace which is threatening the lives and livelihood of too many young people of this country. I had to do all I could during the examination of that legislation by a committee, with little bits of help here and there, to ensure that when a warrant was issued it had to be issued by a person with judicial knowledge, judicial training and the judicial ability to be able quickly to unravel and understand the facts. Having won the battle there, I thought it would be immediately translated into the area of ASIO’s activities. I regret that it has not been done. I regret that a Bill of such public importance is not introduced initially in the House. As I have said, this House should be the national organisation which should be promoting these matters and sending them for subsequent review to the upper House on the other side of the building. I wish this legislation had started here and that it had been considered by our own parliamentary committee. I am sure that we would have got amendments of a kind that I am now advocating. I once again beseech the Government to be a little more reasonable than I think it intends to be when this matter is being discussed during the second reading debate and the Committee stages.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– It is interesting to listen to the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon). He has had an opportunity to be in a position of some authority in this country. He has expressed concern in the past about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. He also questions what could occur in the future. I am concerned that this is a piece of legislation which gives enormous authority and power to an organisation. In the past that organisation has not used that authority and power in the interests of Australia. I believe that we should give grave criticism and have great concern about this legislation.

At the outset the Australian Labor Party has stated that it intends to move an amendment during the second reading debate which is very lengthy and detailed. If that is defeated then it intends to oppose the second reading motion. When this Bill goes into the Committee stage the Opposition intends to move lengthy and detailed amendments to try to alter the Bill. But even if those amendments are accepted, we believe that the legislation is so bad that we intend to oppose it at the third reading stage. That is the position of the Opposition which has been spelt out and determined by the Caucus of the Labor Party. At least we have some opportunity in this House to discuss in a calm and rational way what is one of the most serious pieces of legislation to come before this Parliament and that is a Bill to make a new Act for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. It is better that we can spend the time to present a range of viewpoints on this Bill than to be pressured into giving a quick vote and have it steamrolled through on the numbers. I think that is why all honourable members should at least read what the right honourable member for Lowe has said because I know there has been some concern, even on the back benches of the conservative side of this Parliament. So I am pleased that more thoughtful consideration is being given to this legislation.

Mr Cotter:

– We are a thoughtful Government.

Mr UREN:

-I know that the honourable member interjects because he has not got much grey matter up top but the whole situation -

Mr Cotter:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I feel quite offended because I did not refer to the lack of grey matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond)The honourable member for Kalgoorlie has not received the call as yet from the Chair. He has raised a point of order.

Mr Cotter:

– I ask for a withdrawal of that inference on my ability to think.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Cotter:

– In fact, my interjection had nothing whatsoever to do with grey matter.

Mr UREN:

-To be co-operative -

Mr Cotter:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought you gave me the call.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-You have the call.

Mr Cotter:

– I object to the inference by the honourable member for Reid and I ask for his withdrawal of that inference.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Kalgoorlie has made his point.

Mr UREN:

-I do not want to hurt the feelings of the honourable member and so I withdraw any reflections which I made on the honourable member. We know that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) is so concerned about the security of this nation. We know that he is one of those honourable members who wants to get involved in the uranium mining industry. He wants to get involved in the whole question of the nuclear power industry. If fact, even though he recognises that there is an interrelationship between the uranium mines and nuclear warthat is the spread of nuclear weapons- that is of no concern to him at all. He is that type of member, as are so many other honourable members on the other side of this chamber.

Mr Cotter:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Kalgoorlie not to take fictitious points of order.

Mr Cotter:

– I am not taking a specious point of order. The remarks made by the honourable member for Reid inferring that I have no regard for atomic warfare and nuclear warfare are completely false.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member for Reid to address his remarks to the Chair and not to interest himself in other honourable members of Parliament.

Mr UREN:

– In making our expressions here today, we should, at least, have the freedom in this House to express our concern on behalf of the Australian people who are the people we represent. If we cannot do this then the entire parliamentary system is a sham. That is why I feel it is important to have this in-depth discussion. I do not want to be sidetracked onto other issues. As it is, we have a long way to go before we can say that we have a genuine democratic system in this country. We have a long way to go before we can say that the Parliament is effective and equitable for responding to the demands and the needs of the Australian people. My aim has always been to extend genuine democracy and to struggle against those forces in society that seek to limit the freedom of our people and to collectively determine the decisions that affect their daily lives. My aim is therefore directly political in the sense that in order to achieve democracy we have to change the relationship of power among the people. We have to change the present system that reinforces the power of the minority to impose its decision on the majority. We have to give some considerations to the fact that in this country we do have a system whereby the real power lies outside this Parliament. The real power lies with the corporate sector. It lies with the media as was demonstrated by the recent South Australian election results which were determined by the media. The real power really lies with the bureaucracy. We have to make sure that we transfer that power away from the few back to the many who are the people we should be representing.

There are some actions that this Parliament can take to extend that democracy. There are other actions that can be taken to push that progressive struggle forward. The ASIO Bill which is before this House represents one of the most dangerous attacks on democracy that we could ever see in Australia. I am concerned about two main issues in relation to this Bill. Firstly, I am concerned about the kind of society that will result from the activities of ASIO operating under the proposed Act. Secondly, I am concerned about what people will think about the future options of this society and their willingness to continue the struggle for freedom. Let us consider what ASIO is empowered to do under the proposed Act. Under this Act, the functions of

ASIO are to obtain, correlate and evaluate intelligence relevant to security and to communicate any such intelligence to the appropriate persons. Security is defined as the protection of the people from espionage, sabotage, subversion, active measures of foreign intervention or terrorism. Subversion is defined as including activities that involve, will involve or lead to or are intended or likely ultimately to involve or lead to the use of force or violence or the unlawful acts- we can imagine what would occur in the situation of an unlawful act in Petersen country- which might cause the destruction of the Government, hinder the activities of the Defence Forces or promote violence or hostility between groups so as to endanger peace, order and good government.

In order to carry out these functions, ASIO will be empowered to obtain warrants to allow agents with reasonable grounds for believing that premises require investigation for suspected material: First, to search the premises for the purposes of finding records relevant to that matter and, for that purpose, to open any safe, box, drawer, parcel, envelope or other container in which there is reasonable cause to believe any such records may be found; secondly, to inspect or otherwise examine any records found in the premises and to make copies of transcripts or any record so found that appears to be relevant. One could drive a horse and dray through all those broad references. Thirdly, it has the power to remove any record so found. Those definitions and powers are very broad and capable of a wide range of interpretations. This power is one of the regrettable aspects of this Bill. Such definitions are always stretched to the maximum where it is felt necessary by the authorities concerned. One should have no doubt that they will be used in the interest of broadening the whole power of the bureaucracy because of their vagueness and broadness.

The discretion to use those powers and to make those interpretations is under the control of the Director-General of ASIO. The Minister is not empowered to override the opinion of the Director-General. I emphasise that the Minister is not empowered to override the opinion of the Director-General. In other words, the DirectorGeneral can thumb his nose at this Parliament. Under this legislation we would give him power and greater authority outside of this Parliament. We have here a very dangerous situation where an agency with powers that go beyond any existing protections of civil liberties may on suspicion of a possible and ultimate threat to security broadly defined, make forced entry to premises, search and remove documents, bug conversations and intercept mail. The Organisation is not directly answerable to the Minister. This Bill will put the Organisation beyond the Parliament and beyond democratic control. I hope that sinks right into the minds of conservative members on the other side of the chamber. They will give that power to these bureaucrats. It will create the problem that in the name of defending our freedom, ASIO will act to restrict our freedom. There is no way that the people can call on ASIO to account for its actions.

This measure will worsen the difficulties that are already apparent in ASIO’s activities. Enough evidence has been put on the record to date of the corruptness of the power used by ASIO in the past. It has developed its own concept of freedom and security. It has defined whatever does not conform to its idea of what is right and what is wrong. It has recorded as threatening, anything that is in opposition to the establishment. I very much stress that point. These powers are the very forces that in themselves will threaten our security and the collective will of the people to defend their interests. They will act to intimidate some people from expressing their opposition to injustice. Of course, we already have enough injustice growing in our society. They will act to provoke violent divisions among groups in our society rather than peacefully to resolve legitimate conflicts. ASIO will have more power than it has even now to become involved in domestic politics and to take sides in political differences in this country. Its politics are already shaded. This legislation will in fact give it greater power to take that further. We have to recognise the implications of this in the long term, not in the short term.

As I see it, the more the shape of the Australian economy is determined by the decisions of big corporations that are increasingly locked into a system of foreign control, the more burdens will be placed on the majority of the Australian people. Unemployment, reduced living standards, increased pollution and the restriction of our hard-earned industrial rights will continue to be eroded. The corporate state that acts to protect these private organisations from the legitimate demands of the people will increasingly be pressured to resort to direct coercive methods of control of the people. The regressive industrial legislation introduced by this Government, the equally repressive industrial and civil legislation enacted by the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland, the Court Government in Western Australia, the Hamer Government in Victoria and the Fraser Government can be seen in this context. They are intimidatory threats to the rights of people to defend their interests through assembly and industrial action. They are threats which are backed up by the force of the police and the authority of the state apparatus and, if needed in some cases the military itself. Up till now the corporate state has only rarely had to act in such an intimidatory and violent way. In the past it has relied on gaining the consent of the people through the use of a range of welfare services, the education system, the media, the churches, the arbitration system, the law and the Parliament. But it is apparent that these ways are no longer sufficient. They are not all recognised as having legitimacy. They cannot all be funded to the extent necessary to respond to what the people increasingly demand.

The more enlightened members of the establishment have seen that it is in their best long term interests to maintain social harmony through the systems of consent. I recommend, as did the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon), in the rational remarks he made tonight, whether or not we disagree very strongly on politics, that it is better to get an agreement by consent than to get it by coercion and intimidation which this legislation is all about. They have seen that systems of coercion inevitably create instability and eventually lead to a form of fascism. But it now seems that we have a group within the establishment who do not see this in that liberal way. They want to take a more conservative, oppressive and agressive way. They are more prepared to make force a major weapon to keep the majority of people compliant to their corporate interests. I suggest that in the long term this approach will benefit no one. The people will not remain intimidated. They will answer force with force. It will benefit no one at all in this country. But we should have no doubt that this legislation, which is part of the intimidatory tactics of the conservative forces, is on the head of the Government and not on that of the Opposition.

The proposed Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act is based on a belief that the Australian people need to be more seriously protected against terrorism, especially those forms of terrorism that are manipulated by foreign forces. The Australian people should be protected against terrorism, but the best form of such defence is to build up a strong social system of security where the people are prepared to defend the common interests. The reality is- this kind of political statement is not understood by most people in the media and certainly not by Government members- that the real foreign threat to the interests of the Australian people comes from the powerful transnational corporations and their associated institutions. It has been said more than once before that there are two ways a country can be conquered. First, a country can be conquered by military means and, secondly, by economic means. We should have no doubt that this country is being conquered by economic means. With it there is also the insecurity of this oppressive legislation to answer the pressure of those external forces and those powerful corporations that are putting greater and greater pressure onto the representatives of the conservative elements of this country.

This Bill would allow Australia’s intelligence organisation to protect those corporate interests from the Australian people. In this regard there is a very interesting report prepared for the Trilateral Commission in 1975- the network of international corporations co-ordinated by the Rockefeller empire and represented in Australia by the Pacific Institute. The report entitled ‘The Crisis of Democracy’ talks about the problem of the governability of democracies’. It argues that governments are unable to take the tough decisions that the corporations require to be taken because they do not have sufficient control within their societies.

I ask honourable members to think deeply about this legislation. Indeed, it is very oppressive legislation; it is a very dangerous piece of legislation. I hope that enough government members will make strong criticism of it to push it into the Committee stage where it can be considered at length. Unless we do that I believe our democracy will be eroded even further.

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

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BURR:
Wilmot

– I listened with great interest to the remarks of the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). I suggest that it would have been wise for all honourable members, both those presently in the chamber and those outside it, to have listened with great interest to what the honourable member said. He said absolutely nothing about the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill. He made no contribution to the debate on this Bill. (Quorum formed). I was saying before the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) spuriously called for that quorum- I am grateful that he brought an audience into the House- that all honourable members in this place should read with very great interest the Hansard record of the speech just made by the honourable member for

Reid. He made absolutely no contribution to the debate on the ASIO Bill, but he did make some most enlightening disclosures about his ideological beliefs.

People who at times give some credence to his public rantings and ravings should read with great interest of those things in which the honourable member for Reid really believes. In the speech that he has just made on this legislation he showed us that he, and in fact some of his supporters, would seek to tear down the political and economic system that has been the governing force in this country since its foundation. Everyone should read with great interest the words of the honourable member for Reid, and everyone should remember those words when the next election comes around. Everyone should remember the words of the honourable member for Reid the next time he is demonstrating in public

He made quite fallaciously the accusation that the power of a minority is exercised in this country over the majority. How can he make that sort of claim when everyone in Australia over the age of 18 years is entitled to register his or her vote in a ballot box? Can he claim that a majority of people won the South Australian election for the Liberal Party? These are the sorts of things that the honourable member for Reid, in opposing the provisions of the ASIO Bill, would seek to render on the Australian nation. We need to look very closely at the ideological basis of the things in which the honourable member for Reid and his associates believe.

I think that all thinking Australians would take the view that a security organisation is vital in Australia. We must have an organisation that can identify and keep tabs on those forces, either external or internal, that would seek to destroy our political and economic system in Australia. I believe that our economic and our political systems have made Australia one of the greatest countries of the world; but we need have no doubt that there are forces both within and outside Australia that would seek to destroy our political and our economic systems. I think the statements of the honourable member for Reid give credence to my views on this matter.

We have also seen, in Australia and outside Australia, incidents of terrorism at which I think most people in this country would be completely aghast. I think the action which really brought home the seriousness of this matter was the bombing which occurred outside the Hilton Hotel a couple of years ago. That brought home to the people of Australia the fact that terrorism is no longer a matter which is played out in other countries and which does not affect us locally. Terrorism is occurring and terrorist groups are active in Australia. Tabs must be kept on them. They must be identified and, where necessary, they must be eliminated for the security of the Australian people. I think that all thinking Australians would believe in that and would agree that we must have a security organisation of that type to protect the interests of innocent Australians. But, in drawing up legislation for the purpose of protecting the interests of innocent Australians, we in the Parliament must make certain that we do not impose on the people of Australia a force that in effect would destroy the very way of life that we believe is fundamental to all Australians.

It is true that in arriving at a security organisation to protect the people we have to keep in mind that such an organisation needs to have wide powers of surveillance and wide powers in relation to other mechanisms involved with the disclosure of information in order that we can keep proper account of terrorist type organisations. But we must also protect innocent individuals in the community against unnecessary actions taken by such a security organisation in the name of protecting the security of Australia. I do not believe that at this stage the Bill provides sufficient protection for innocent individuals in the community. We must recognise that this is a completely new Bill; it is not a Bill which seeks to amend an existing Act of Parliament. In fact, that was spelt out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) when he said:

The legislative reforms themselves are so fundamental and wide ranging that a completely new Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill rather than amendment to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act I9S6 has been drafted.

He went on to say that the existing ASIO Act will be repealed. So we are looking at a completely new Bill, not amendments to an existing Act. The provisions that are contained therein need to be given the most searching scrutiny, both by the members of this Parliament and by the community. There needs to be a community consensus that an organisation such as ASIO is necessary and that the powers contained in this Bill are necessary. If there is not a community consensus to that effect the Bill will not work and ASIO will not work because there will be community reaction to it. If the provisions of the present Bill go too far or the interpretations are ill-defined, again there will be a reaction in the community that could well result not in the security situation being solved but rather in the creation of instability in the community. On that point I agree with the honourable member for Reid. It is about the only point on which I agree with him.

Mr Birney:

– That was the only one he made.

Mr BURR:

-I think it was. This Bill gives to ASIO powers which are much wider than it has under the present legislation. It is true that the former Government initiated moves to set up a royal commission to investigate what is necessary for a security organisation and what changes are required. That royal commission, under Mr Justice Hope, brought down its recommendations. It is true that people in the community had the opportunity to express views to that royal commission. But what needs to be recognised, I think, is that people in the community were expressing views.on the way in which ASIO had operated in the past. Up to this stage, an effective opportunity has not been given to people in the community to express their opinions on the proposals that are contained in this Bill. If the security organisation is to work and is to be accepted by the community, there needs to be an opportunity for individuals and groups in the community to express their views, not on the way in which ASIO has worked in the past, but on the provisions of this BUI. That opportunity has not been given. Before this BUI becomes law I believe that that opportunity should be given to members of the public.

It should be remembered that this Bill does give considerably wider powers to ASIO. One of the provisions, as mentioned in the Minister’s second reading speech, needs to be recognised. The Minister said:

Honourable members will recall that an important theme in the royal commission’s report is that ASIO should at all time comply with the law. It has also been the concern of the present Director-General that ASIO should comply with the law but existing laws present problems for effective intelligence collection. This was recognised by the royal commission which concluded that the Organisation required certain specified powers of intelligence collection and that the laws should be changed to this end.

After careful consideration the Government accepted this recommendation. In other words, the Government has accepted that in certain circumstances ASIO or security organisations should not be required to comply with existing laws in Australia. It may be the conclusion of the Government that ASIO need not comply with those laws under certain circumstances, but I challenge the Government to prove that that view is shared by the community. If that view is not shared by the community, this provision should not be in this BUI because we, as a Parliament, cannot impose on the public of Australia those provisions that the public is not prepared to accept. If we try to do that, I believe that we wil create a security situation that does not exist at the moment. I have no idea whether the people of Australia are prepared to accept a security organisation that does not comply with existing laws. Maybe the Government is wiser than I; I do not know. But I think that it is rather egotistical of us in this place to assume that we have some super monoply on wisdom that we can presume to know all these things and can take a view without referring some of these matters for an opinion by the public.

Mr Goodluck:

– We do that every day.

Mr BURR:

– I agree with the honourable member for Franklin. So I put forward the view both to the Government and to the members of this Parliament that this BUI should be referred to a select committee. I think we need to recognise what that would involve. It would involve setting up a committee of this House with judicial authority to take views and evidence from people in the community, from groups and individuals who may wish to express an opinion on various provisions of the BUI. Such a select committee would be required to bring down a report to this House before the BUI proceeded any further.

I have not expressed views on any of the provisions of the Bill but people have come to me expressing concern and reservation about them. I am not a legal man. I am not legally trained and I do not presume to put forward legal argument in the same way as the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) did earlier in this debate, but I do think that we, as a House of the Parliament, have an obligation to provide the opportunity to members of the public to put forward their views, if they are concerned enough to do so. One of the matters of concern expressed to me- the right honourable member for Lowe mentioned this matter earlier- is the interpretation of ‘subversion’ as contained in the Bill. As I have said, I am not a legal man and I cannot express an opinion as to the fine points of legal interpretation of such words, but if there is concern in the community, then we have an obligation to allow the people who are concerned about that interpretation to put forward their views and have those views properly taken into account by this House.

Another matter of concern that has been expressed to me is also referred to in the Minister’s second reading speech. The Minister said:

A further major consideration is the creation in Pan IV of the Bill of a totally new statutory framework for the preparation and communication of ASIO security assessments in respect of individuals and the giving to most persons affected by prejudicial security assessments of a right of appeal to a tribunal presided over by a judge.

So the right of appeal is to be given only to most persons. Who are we to stand here with such superior wisdom and say that some person should not have the right of appeal to a tribunal? Are people in Australia prepared to accept that? I do not know. We in this House are prepared to set ourselves up with such superior knowledge that we presume that some people in the community will not be given the right of appeal to a tribunal.

The proposition has also been put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) that this Bill should be referred to a legislation committee. I think that people in the community need to understand what that proposal means. There is a procedure in this House whereby Bills of importance can be referred to a legislation committee of the House. This allows that committee to look closely at the various provisions of the Bill. What also needs to be understood is that these committees are comprised of 16 members of this House and that such committees are not open for members of the public to put their views or to give evidence to those committees. This also deprives other members of this House who are not part of those committees from expressing any view at all. It is true that after the Bill has gone through a legislation committee it will come back into this House before it reaches the final stage. But because members of the public are precluded from expressing a view to such a legislation committee, I take the view that that would be a very bad second alternative to better scrutiny of the Bill itself. We are, in effect, setting up a new organisation and giving it much wider powers than has been the case in the past. But at this stage I am not convinced that the public of Australia is sufficiently educated or prepared to accept that such a Bill, such an organisation, is right for the present situation in Australia.

I think that we have an obligation to consider this whole matter at much greater length than has been the case today. It is true that this Bill was debated at great length in the Senate and that a considerable number of amendments were accepted by the Government in the Senate, but, as the right honourable member for Lowe said, as the people’s House, the Lower House of the Parliament, we have a primary obligation to fulfil our role in scrutinising legislation. We cannot simply say that the Senate has done all our work for us. We have an obligation. I do not take the view, as has been put forward by the Government, that this Bill is of such importance that it needs to be rushed through the House. Again, I share the view of the right honourable member for Lowe that because this Bill carries with it such wide implications it needs to be very carefully considered by the Parliament and that all possible techniques must be used in considering the Bill to give members of the public the opportunity to put forward their views before it finally proceeds into law.

I am not too sure what are the intentions of the Government about this Bill, but I do impress on the Government the need to proceed cautiously, the need for less haste in order to give every consideration to the Bill, thereby allowing people in the community and members of parliament to scrutinise properly all sections of the Bill and the need to proceed at a very slow rate so that the Bill, when it is finally drafted and finally put into law will be a Bill that reflects the common view and the acceptance of the Australian people.

Mr UREN (Reid)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr UREN:

-I do. The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) said that I wanted to dismantle the legal and constitutional forms in this society. That is completely false. What I said, and what I have expressed, was that I want to extend the forms of democracy, not restrict the people’s freedoms as this legislation does.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-As indicated earlier, I second the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and believe that if the proposed amendments are carried they will make this legislation far less partisan and more worthy of support from the Australian people. I have a profound and growing scepticism about what might be called the whole ‘cult of security’ and its associated frame of mind. In opposition to the cult of security I would like to advocate and promote an intellectually based scepticism. I cannot say a ‘cult of scepticism’ because scepticism and cults are antipathetic. The cult of security is based on the fallacy that the safety of this nation, and others like it, depends in large part on the maintenance of an intelligence organisation which guards the nation ‘s secrets and protects its organisations and leaders, apart from normal police protection. The cult is based on an inversion of an archetypal legend found in Greek mythology, the story of Pandora’s box. The idea was that her box held a variety of evils and that at all costs it had to be kept closed. But if by some chance the box was opened these evils would burst out and the world would never be the same again.

The apologists for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation believe- very sincerely in some cases- that somewhere there is a collection of files marked ‘TOP SECRET’ or ‘UMBRA’ which contain the nation’s secrets and if these precious documents were exposed the security of the nation would be imperilled. This seems a ludicrous scenario. What is less ludicrous is the extreme difficulty for this Parliament to evaluate in any serious way the activities of ASIO and its sister organisations. We cannot criticise it for its failures because they are secret. We cannot even praise it for its achievements, if any, because the achievements are secret too. In fact, there is nothing to do except to trust the words of those set in authority over us.

We are told that we should accept the findings of Mr Justice Hope in his report of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security. Certainly, I believe the judge to be a man of great intelligence and integrity. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to read his full report because much of it remains secret. I cannot examine the material which led His Honour to reach his judgment because much of that is secret too. We are also told that we should accept that the present DirectorGeneral of ASIO, Mr Justice Woodward, is a man of integrity and that we can trust him not to carry out any of the excesses of his predecessors in office. I accept that too. I have great admiration for Mr Justice Woodward and can only express my amazement that the Fraser Government has left him in his position. He is one of very few surviving administrative appointments from the Whitlam years. I suspect that the Government may have used him in order to allay fears about the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill, which he has done with great success. But we may well find that he will return to the bench on the day after these Bills receive the royal assent. It should be remembered that ours is a government of laws, not of men. We cannot accept a Bill which we do not otherwise like on the grounds that the individual who will be administering the law is somebody for whom we have respect and admiration.

Sigmund Freud wrote somewhere that human beings can be divided broadly into two categories- anal retentionists and oral expressives. Members of this Parliament, irrespective of party, can be classified in the same way. Temperamentally, one group is timid, anxious, fearful of external threats, seeking psychological support from authority figures and other support systems, convinced that there are vital secrets locked away somewhere which, if revealed, will destroy the security of the world in which it lives. The need for a security service is, for that group, not just a parrot phrase, but a matter of psychological- perhaps even physiologicalnecessity. The other basic human type, the oral expressives- to whom the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) and I belong- who are probably in a minority here tonight, are more confident and self-reliant, sceptical about authority figures and doubtful whether society can be destroyed by passing particular pieces of information from one group to another, or even from one nation to another. The problem with the first group is that it may become despairing about the possibility of society solving its difficulties, may adopt a paranoically threatening view of the external world and may look to a security service rather than a well informed, vigorous and sceptical democratic system to maintain stability. In other words there is less reliance on the political process and more reliance on the security system. Of course each security organisation pours into the credulous ears of its political masters exactly what it wants them to hear.

Let me give honourable members a horrific example from a democratic country of how an essentially paranoid view about secrecy can create general hysteria and distort and pervert the traditional norms of law and justice. In June 1953 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were electrocuted in Sing Sing prison on a charge of conspiracy to commit espionage in wartime, for passing on technical details of atomic weapons to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in September 1945, still technically during wartime, at a time when Russia was an ally of the United States of America. Judge Irving Kaufman, in sentencing them to death, said that the Rosenbergs had ‘altered the course of human history’ and had caused ‘the Communist aggression in Korea with the resulting casualties exceeding 50,000 ‘. This view, which was popular enough at the time, now seems demented. We know from the documents made available now under the Freedom of Information Act that the material passed on to the Russians was both piddling and redundant compared with the material supplied earlier by Klaus Fuchs. The judge’s reaction was based on an assumption that the USSR had no high level technical capacity and that the only way it could develop an atomic bomb was by stealing secrets from the Americans. He also assumed that a bloody and prolonged war in a divided nation with a 3,000 year history was not the product of domestic pressures but the direct result of a sketch of an atomic bomb component drawn from memory by a machinist with no scientific training. This is a perfect example of an essentially paranoid view of history.

Let me give a ludicrous Australian example which I have cited before in this House but which bears repeating. It is a Joint Intelligence Organisation document Note No. 2/1975 headed World Oil: Recent Developments’ and marked TOP SECRET UMBRA. To be kept under lock and key and never removed from the office unless transmitted in accordance with the regulations’. The document contains a report of quite stupefying banalty examining effects of oil price rises announced after a meeting of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries in Vienna in December 1974. Far more information is contained in contemporary issues of the Economist, freely available. But in any case, we have to ask: Who is protected by the secrecy? The Russians would have all the information already- both from the activities of their own agents in Vienna and from having bought copies of the Economist. At JIO headquarters I could imagine the antipodean equivalents of Biggies and Bulldog Drummond reading the Economist, laboriously typing their summaries and routinely marking them ‘TOP SECRET UMBRA’.

Some political associates of mine see ASIO as a sinister organisation. When I say that its staff seem much more like a collection of Keystone Cops I am told: ‘That is just a front. They only pretend to be incompetent’. But it is true that over a long period members of ASIO have put out an extraordinarily ill informed picture of the world. I think we lack political sophistication as a nation. I refer to our extraordinary, dim witted treatment of the Dunera refugees in 1940 and the extraordinary lengths that we went to with those 2,500 bedraggled Jewish refugees who were given the stern warning that they must under no circumstances conduct political meetings at which they advanced Nazi or fascist propaganda. One could hardly imagine a more idiotic example of misinformation. Yet it was absolutely characteristic of this nation at the time.

A friend of mine left the Communist Party after many years of membership. Soon after he was approached by an ASIO man. This was after 1956. He made an arrangement to meet the ASIO man in an out of the way suburban pub in Melbourne. After the ASIO man had established his identity he dropped his voice conspiratorially and asked my friend: ‘Who’s this Leon Trotsky we’ve been hearing so much about?’ It is impossible to evaluate ASIO’s track record because we know so little about it. The Victoria Police has great contempt for ASIO’s methods of investigation. ASIO failed dismally in its handling of security at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sydney which culminated in the tragic bomb incident at the Hilton Hotel. I could not agree more with the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) who said, ‘Yes, we need protection against terrorists’. If we have to rely on ASIO to protect us against terrorism then it is about time we left the country. It has no track record in this area at all. ASIO failed dismally in its handling of the various bombing incidents against Yugoslav property. We do know that ASIO spent a good deal of time snooping around trade unions trying to find out what unionists were doing but so far as actual, active, serious work in security is concerned in relation to subversion, real or apparent, and trying to deal with terrorism ASIO has no track record at all. The security of Australia depends not on ASIO but on an alert, informed and sceptical Australian democracy.

We have had much discussion lately about work value cases and I find it almost impossible to make any judgment on the work value of ASIO. If the entire staff of ASIO went on long service leave for 12 months without anyone knowing, would anything change in Australia? ASIO can claim that after all there has not been a single revolution in Australia since ASIO was set up in 1949; therefore it must be doing a great job. But of course we did not have a revolution in the first 49 years of the Commonwealth either. It is very difficult to make out any kind of rational case for work value so far as ASIO is concerned. I ask leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard paragraphs 208 to 221 of Mr Justice Hope’s fourth report on the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security.

Leave granted.

The paragraphs read as follows- 208. . . . intelligence assessment is no simple or routine activity but a highly skilled and subtle task. I must report that I saw little evidence in ASIO that the qualities of mind and expertise needed were recognized, or available in any large measure. 209. The intelligence officer needs to be a person of good education, sound practical sense, and with an insight into people. He or she must have good research skills [4-70] and the ability to think and write clearly. He needs to be sensitive to political policy issues before the Government. ASIO needs to encourage those in the organization who have manifested these qualities, and to seek vigorously in the market place for more such. [4-7 1 ] 2 10. But intelligence analysis also needs access to a range of experts. I shall mention only a few. 211. First, there are people with skills in information storage and retrieval. The need for ASIO to attend to this matter is very great. 212. Secondly, people with skills in languages are needed. ASIO does not have a good record here. 213. Thirdly, ASIO needs people with some expertise in political science and related disciplines. ASIO should be a place where the study of marxism, in all its forms and manifestations, is a high academic discipline. Some people in ASIO should have not only graduate, but postgraduate, qualifications in these areas. 214. Fourth, since ASIO is so much involved with looking at people, there ought to be officers with skills in sociology, psychology and related areas. 2 15. Fifth, technical and scientific expertise may be needed more often than is believed. Where espionage is so often devoted to stealing technical and scientific secrets, the means of attack may not always be apparent to a layman. 2 16. In pan E, I make further observations relevant to this matter.

  1. Credibility and reliability 217. ASIO should develop processes of evaluation of sources, independently of the operations area. It must have the resources to do its job properly. It must have complete access to all material bearing on its task in each case. 218. Each intelligence report should also be read by the appropriate ASIO intelligence desk officer. He should be given clearly to understand that it is his function critically to examine such reports, and not just to take the information they contain at face value. If he doubts the accuracy of a report, the system should ensure that the query is resolved quickly and objectively. 219. I stress objectivity because there is a tendency, especially with those running agents, to think that their agent “must” be reliable. He may not be. He may be a clever liar. Other information, from independent sources, is needed to establish objectively the truth of any and every agent report. 220. Assessment and evaluation is also needed to maintain an effective intelligence collection programme. Without monitoring income intelligence, ASIO could not gauge whether it adequately covered existing intelligence targets and properly determined new ones. 221. Without checking information supplied by agents against independently verified information, and without having regular assessments made of the agent operations, I do not see how ASIO can place reliance on its agent reports. In part E of this report I shall examine changes in ASIO’s structure and working methods needed to achieve adequate assessment of intelligence.
Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I thank the House. I draw attention to the key paragraph, paragraph 208, in which Mr Justice Hope says: . . intelligence assessment is no simple or routine activity but a highly skilled and subtle task. I must report that I saw little evidence in ASIO that the qualities of mind and expertise needed were recognised, or available in any large measure.

The whole basis of ASIO is that it has a special God-given, rather than statute-given, right which places it above public scrutiny, able to act on its own conception of public duty, secure in its secrecy and able to do things that are denied the elected Parliament. I conclude from my reading of Mr Justice Hope’s report that ASIO in its present form lacks the sophistication and capacity to evaluate that we should expect from an intelligence organisation. I draw attention to Mr

Justice Hope’s third report and to several quotations which I think the House ought to take careful note of. He quotes from Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, the Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, now Lord Trevor-Roper. Professor Trevor-Roper worked with MI5 during the war and in his book The Philby Affair he wrote:

Secret intelligence is the continuation of open intelligence by other means. So long as governments conceal a part of their activities, other governments, if they wish to base their policy on full and correct information, must seek to penetrate the veil. This inevitably entails varying methods. But however the means may vary, the end must still be the same. It is to complement the results of what, for convenience, we may call ‘public’ intelligence: that is, the intelligence derived from rational study of public or at least avowable sources. Intelligence, in fact, is indivisible ‘.

That is the key sentence. If there is one sentence that I want honourable members to remember from my speech tonight it is:

Intelligence, in fact, is indivisible’.

The quotation continues:

The greater part of it must always be acquired by open or official methods. Only a relatively small area requires secret penetration, or espionage. Nevertheless that small area may be vital . . . it must always be continuous with ‘open ‘ intelligence.

The point of course is that as time goes on, as the time frame changes and the point of reference changes too. Things that seem absolutely essential to keep secret become matters of absolute irrelevance. In other words, material about the atomic bomb which 20 years ago was regarded as terribly secret is now available for open scrutiny. There is no secret about it any more. The information is the same but our point of view has changed. On page 5 of the third report Mr Justice Hope, in summing up quotes Professors M. S. McDougal, H. D. Lasswell and W. M. Reisman on the intelligence function. They wrote:

Basic to any body politic is the realism of the judgments that enter into the stream of public decision. Fundamental to judgment is intelligence which is the gathering, processing and dissemination of problem-identifying and problemsolving information. The five intellectual tasks are the clarification of goals, the description of trends, the analysis of conditions, the projection of developments and the formulation of policy alternatives. The intelligence process is responsible for locating all sources of knowledge that may be useful to decision makers, and for the mobilisation of the information relevant to questions of immediate importance.

One page 6 of the same report Mr Justice Hope wrote:

The Australian intelligence community is fragmented, poorly co-ordinated and organised. The agencies lack proper guidance direction and control. They do not have good or close relations with the system of government they should serve. In some cases, they have lacked funds and other resources (for example, adequate staff) to do the jobs expected of them. In other cases they have used lack of funds as an alibi for not doing jobs they should have done.

This is not a wildly impressive story. The point about it is that if one looks at ASIO’s contribution to Austraiian politics in the past one sees that it led us completely up a blind alley over the Vietnam war. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out this afternoon, if it was a matter of providing something for the Army Minister, such as a report on a child in a school cadet corps who was thought to be harbouring subversive thoughts, yes, ASIO was absolutely capable of producing a report on that. But in respect of any kind of sensitive intelligent evaluation of what was going on in Vietnam, no, it was out of ASIO’s depth; not quite its scene. In respect of dobbing in somebody who was heard to say in a pub something about trade union activity, yes, it was absolutely able to do that. But if it was a question of providing some sort of an evaluation on what China was doing throughout the world, no, it was absolutely out of its depth and it did not even have the books to rely on.

A number of alarming things are in the Hope report. I just want to touch on several more. In paragraph 243 of the fourth report. Mr Justice Hope, referring to what ASIO was doing in the trade union area, wrote:

The third area concerning which difficulties arise in respect of the communication of intelligence is that of trade unions. ASIO does not, and properly does not, surveil employer organizations or trade unions as such. However, the surveillance by ASIO or left-wing radical organizations judged to be subversive or potentially subversive, and of the members of those organizations, has led to ASIO obtaining intelligence concerning the activities of trade unions which are controlled by members of those organizations or which the members of those organizations seek to control. As in the case of the organization and of their members, the communication of this intelligence can only be a matter of concern for ASIO, or justified, if it is judged to affect or to be in the interests of security. Activities do not affect security merely because they make for, or do result in, industrial disruption.

But there is an alarming kind of logical slide which says in effect that advocating change is the equivalent of subversion and subversion is the equivalent of political illegitimacy. Therefore, maintaining the existing authority organisations in society is valid and deserves the protection of ASIO whereas any organisation which takes a contrary point of view has to be under the surveillance of ASIO. This is a view very similar to the view that Mr Salisbury took when he was Police Commissioner in South Australia. His view was that he had responsibility, that his oath of office gave him an obligation to authorities above the elected government of the day. But just as elected governments can go in and they can go out on the vote of the people somebody who takes the view that he has a permanent conception of his duty that is above the political process cannot really be touched by the vote of the people. I think that is tragic if we are serious about maintaining democracy. I conclude by referring to paragraphs 245 and 246 of the Hope report which relate to the Press and other media. Paragraph 245 states:

Evidence is available to me that satisfies me that ASIO has in the past provided selected people with security intelligence material for publication.

Paragraph 246 states:

The material provided was apparently drawn from information available in the public arena. It seems to have been ASIO’s intention that the material be not attributed to it.

We need an organisation that is above criticism. The only way we can obtain that is by adopting the amendments moved so ably by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

– I have listened with interest to the speeches in this debate, particularly that of the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) who has just spoken. I noted the emphasis he put on scepticism and, particularly, what he described as the scepticism of the security cult. From listening to his speech, as he described what he saw in our security organisation in Australia, one could be forgiven for believing that one had been listening to the total sceptic. He described honourable members who defend security organisations and who have a concern for the world in which we live as having some paranoic fear. I wish that he had been in the chamber to listen to some of the speeches of his colleagues earlier. He may also have detected some paranoia on his side of the House in the feelings that Opposition members have about persecution and what information security organisations might be keeping about them. If he was so convinced in his scepticism about the adequacy of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation one would have thought that he would have been able to convince his colleagues to take one certain line, that is, the line he took which suggested that ASIO is an organisation unworthy of worry and concern. I was even surprised that he wanted to come into the chamber and support the amendment when he was so sceptical about ASIO and its adequacy. In the end he managed to get into the rhetoric. One might be forgiven for making a passing reference to another of those terms that some of our doctors use. Perhaps he was almost schizophrenic in the way in which he described ASIO as being totally ineffective and yet being an organisation that had to be feared in the way in which he described it towards the end of his speech.

The honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) and the honourable member for Lalor both attempted to offer for the Labor Party their intellectual justification for attacking this legislation and the purposes behind having a security organisation. The honourable member for Bonython was critical in his address because he saw security organisations as being necessary in maintaining a police state, an autocracy. He did not think that a strong democracy needed a security organisation. The honourable member for Lalor took a similar view in his understanding of what a democracy is about. He could not foresee situations in which even a strong democracy could be undermined by a very small group of people who had no belief in the system we have and no commitment to maintaining it. I must say that I find such a view naive in the extreme.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Give us an example.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– We could look at what the British are finding in Northern Ireland today. Some people are no longer living under the sort of code they followed before. The problem no longer involves the old religious dispute between the Protestants and the Catholics. A marxist organisation consisting of a small number of people is determined to overthrow the state. It is not prepared to allow these matters to be worked out by intelligent human beings in the way in which I believe that they can be worked out.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Are you referring to the unemployed?

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I am referring quite specifically to a small group of people who we now know are quite active in the United Kingdom and throughout Northern Ireland, who are no longer supported by the mainstream elements which might have differences of opinion, and who are quite determined to adopt the most indefensible techniques to bring about change and to bring down governments. We have seen the methods they have adopted. I do not intend to go any further along that particular line, but let me quote Golda Meir. In looking at why we need security organisations I think it is important to bear these sorts of matters in mind. She said:

  1. . this is a problem of democracies. Because a country is democratic, must everything be known?

This is the view which is taken by honourable members opposite. She continued:

Must we weaken ourselves and strengthen our enemies? In democracies we think all countries are like ourselves. Unfortunately . . . they are not.

I do not think it can be summed up better than that.

There has been a great deal of distortion and half truth about this legislation. It has been suggested by a great number of the critics that this legislation is creating an organisation that will have quite extensive powers over individuals. One would almost think that its members would be able to arrest people and do all sorts of other things that might in some way restrict the freedom of the individual. But in fact the Organisation does not have powers to do this. The Organisation is one which- I intend to quote its functions briefly in a moment- clearly cannot do that. But if we look at a lot of the articles which have been published in the prelude to this debate, we see reference to terms such as ‘ASIO interference’. That came from an article in the National Times of 5 May. In an article headed Unpleasant ASIO facts’, Mrs Joan Coxsedge puts the view that ASIO ought to be able to bring in spies, as it were. Her criticism is in these terms:

ASIO has failed to bring to book a single spy, traitor, saboteur or terrorist.

I guess she has the same sort of scepticism as the honourable member for Lalor. But if honourable members would look at the functions and powers of this Organisation as they are set out in section 1 7 of the Bill they will recognise that its functions are those of a reporting body. It is a body whose purpose it is to gather information, and the Bill is designed to support it in this intelligence gathering role. It does not have a role to arrest people, detect spies or put people in gaol. Section 17 reads:

  1. 1 ) The functions of the Organization are-

    1. to obtain, correlate and evaluate intelligence relevant to security;
    2. b ) for purposes relevant to security and not otherwise, to communicate any such intelligence to such persons, and in such manner, as are appropriate to those purposes; and
    3. to advise Ministers and authorities of the Commonwealth in respect of matters relating to security, in so far as those matters are relevant to their functions and responsibility.
  2. It is not a function of the Organization to carry out or enforce measures for security within an authority of the Commonwealth.

It is quite clear that this legislation is designed to create for ASIO a charter under which it can carry out its functions with greater certainty than has been possible before. It is certainly legislation which is designed to implement reforms, and nobody apologises for that. It was designed to implement the reforms that came about as a result of the report that was quoted in part by the honourable member for Lalor. These reforms were recommended by the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security constituted by Mr Justice Hope, after a most thorough investigation. Certainly I believe they were a result of a considered approach by a judge for whom I have a great deal of time. He is someone whom I have known as a judge of the Supreme Court of New

South Wales, someone who has balanced his approach against the threats that I perceive exist in the world in which we live- the threats which exist to our society from people who do not have the same values as I have. I would hope that in this debate we can see a constructive approach to this legislation so that any shortcomings may be overcome. As I go on in my address tomorrow, I hope to be able to indicate why I do not believe the general proposals that have been advanced by the Opposition are acceptable.

Debate interrupted.

page 1241

ADJOURNMENT

Major Airport Needs of SydneyUnemployment Vietnamese Refugees

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This evening I wish to raise with the House the question of the mooted extensions to Sydney airport and the report of the Major Airport Needs of Sydney study. For some time now a number of members of this House have raised questions about when that report will be finalised. In 1976 the Major Airport Needs of Sydney study was set up. That study was supposed to report by December 1977. It is now September 1979 and the report has still not been brought down. One could suggest that the committee of inquiry into Sydney airport has taken longer to bring on a baby than does an elephant. I hope that the result will not be as big a disaster as that.

I have received a number of complaints and questions from people in my electorate who are most concerned about any extensions to the airport. They are asking questions about the effect on their property values and their lifestyles. They want to know what is going to be the result of the MANS inquiry. Last year, the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, told a number of local government representatives in Canberra that the report would probably be out in May of this year. The month of May has come and gone and there has been no reply. In fact, in reply to a telegram of mine earlier this year the Minister said that the report of the MANS inquiry would be brought out as soon as practicable. I ask: What is meant by that? The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon), the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) and I are doing our best to get that report presented. I have not heard anything from the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) and the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield), who are also vitally affected -

Mr Ruddock:

– Why don’t you ask Mr Wran?

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That is the reply that one receives. They say: ‘Why don’t you ask Mr Wran?’ I would remind the honourable member for Dundas that there is a little thing called Commonwealth responsibility in relation to civil aviation. This Government has consistently stood behind what it says that the State Government should do. The Government knows quite well that it is a decision that it has to make, that the Minister for Transport and his Country Party and Liberal Party colleagues are the ones who will have to make that decision. They are playing volleyball with the lifestyle of the people of Grayndler, Kingsford-Smith and the surrounding electorates. Their property values are under threat and they are worried about what is to happen. The Government is not willing to make a decision. We are saying that that decision should be made, and should be made soon. The people deserve to know what is happening and they should not have to put up with the sort of reply that we get from Mr Nixon relating to the -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Grayndler will refer to the Minister by his title.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-They should not have to put up with the sort of reply we get from the Minister for Transport. He treats members of this House in a cavalier fashion. Some months ago I sent him a telegram asking him about what was happening in regard to the jet curfew. A few days later I received a telegram from him saying that he would reply to me in due course. That occurred on 1 1 July. A month later, on 13 August, the Minister put out a Press statement on the subject. He did not advise first the member of this Parliament who had asked him a civil question about what was happening. He put out a Press statement. That was published in the newspapers on 14 July. On 15 July he bothered to send a letter to me telling me what had happened in regard to the question I raised on behalf of my constituents. The honourable member for St George has a bit of a laugh. Probably he has not received a letter yet because he is also held in contempt.

I would ask that more consideration be given to the people of the electorates of the inner city area who are very concerned about what will happen with the extensions- if there are to be extensions- to Sydney airport. They want a reply one way or the other to their questions about an inquiry which was set up three years ago and which was supposed to report two years ago. The

Minister replies that it will be reporting as soon as practicable. I am asking the Minister to give us his definition of the word ‘practicable’ so that we can have this millstone taken from around our necks.

Mr NEIL:
St George

– It is extraordinary to note the change that has occurred in such a short time in the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), who has just spoken. At the outset he appeared to be a reasonable person. Now we find that already, the honourable member having been absorbed into that horrendous cavern known as the Caucus, the process of deterioration is commencing. Already he fails to differentiate between fact and fiction. We have heard tonight what I hope will be the last such speech that we will hear from this new honourable member. It is one that I hope he would not repeat, because it dealt not with fact but with fiction. It is the sort of speech that his colleagues have told him to come out here and make. They have set him up. The Caucus has got hold of him and said: ‘Go out there. We will give you a few notes. You happen to be the new member for Grayndler. Go out there and have a crack on this airport issue. It does not really matter what you say. The other side won’t really be listening. You can get a copy of your speech, peddle it around the electorate and thus get some cheap popularity. It is very easy. There is no need to bother about the facts or about what is correct.’

Let me first say to the honourable member that if he has any concern about the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), he should have a good talk with him about these matters. He will learn a great deal. The Minister is very thorough and has conducted himself on these matters very appropriately indeed. In regard to the claim made by the honourable member in respect of the Minister’s Press statement of 1 3 August, all I can say is that I was very pleased to have had discussions with the Minister on that very matter; that it was my specific wish, and at my request, that the Press release was then issued. Indeed, the Minister consulted me about it before he issued it. If the honourable member finds that he is not exerting sufficient influence, let him in the interests of his constituents, try a little harder. If he wants to get somewhere in politics and act for his constituents he must learn to persevere. You do not give up. You do not send off some telegram and then fail to follow it through. You have to be thorough on these matters that all members of this House approach on a non-political basis.

The Sydney Airport problem is something that we are approaching on the basis of what is best for the people of the area. We do not want in the area members who are not able to see things through on behalf of their constituents and arrive at proper arrangements. Let us consider the true situation. The fact is that the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Committee was set up by both the Federal and State governments to take politics out of the issue. Now we have the honourable member for Grayndler coming in here and injecting politics into the issue in a very reprehensible fashion. The two governments have agreed to take politics out of the issue. It was as a result of an agreement between the Minister for Transport and the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment that the time allowed for the Committee to report was extended. Both agreed to that so that Committee could do its job. All sorts of inquiries into Sydney airport have been conducted over a period of many years. Honourable members on this side of the chamber will not lend themselves to emotional approaches or to inefficient political pointscoring. We want an appropriate solution found in the interests of the people and on a nonpolitical basis. I repeat, the two governments agreed to extend the period for reporting, and the agreement of both is necessary if we are to produce any practical result. Without it there would be great difficulty in going ahead with any of the recommendations.

It is a fact of life that although the Federal Government has an overriding power in respect of what in the old days was called civil aviation, no facilities can be provided under any of the options that might be considered- I will not go into their merits- other than with the agreement of the New South Wales Government. How could any power, any roadwork or any of the thousand and one other facilities that are needed be provided? The Premier of New South Wales has never disowned the MANS Committee. He was asked by the Rockdale Council to terminate State government involvement in it. Instead, he has retained State government involvement in that Committee. He knows as well as do all honourable members that ultimately both governments must be completely involved in the issue. If the honourable member for Grayndler wishes to complain let him go to the New South Wales Premier and ask him to pull out. The Premier will say no. He has stayed in the MANS Committee, whose report will be received by both governments.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

– Unemployment as a national statistic sounds grim enough, but it is heartbreaking to see individual instances. I draw the attention of this House to the plight of a group of young people in my electorate who have succeeded in battling almost impossible odds only to have been served today with a sharp slap on the face by this Federal Government. I refer to the Warilla Active Youth Team which is funded under the Community Youth Support Scheme. Warilla is a typical working class Housing Commission area in the Shellharbour municipality. For years, residents and the council have struggled to get commonplace facilities such as sewerage, roads, a swimming pool and a youth centre. Just when the quality of life for the people of Warilla was starting to improve, the scourge of unemployment hit. The area has one of the worst levels of youth unemployment in Australia. In July, 1,050 under-20-year-olds were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service, compared with six job vacancies. Since the Warilla Active Youth Team started, 600 people have been helped by the program. As a result, 150 have been successful in finding work- not a bad record, considering those disastrous unemployment figures.

When I rang personally to support the Warilla Active Youth Team for this year’s funding, the Sydney project officer described it as one of the most successful community youth support schemes in Australia; but today the group was told not only that its funding had been slashed but also that it had been cut from a 12-monthly basis to a six-monthly basis. Not only do these people have to cope with an expected 1 1 per cent reduction in funds but also they cannot plan anything, except for a six-monthly period. Two of the most significant areas- sessional instructors and class materials- have been reduced by $4,000 for the next six months. It may not sound much, but consider the people affected, the efforts they have made and their success rate. It is typical of the national situation, rather than the exception. On a national level the Community Youth Support Scheme was cut by 14 per cent in real terms in the last Budget. The National Employment and Training scheme was cut by 47 per cent; that is, by an overall $50m. The Special Youth Employment Training Program was cut by 60 per cent, or by $55m. It is true that Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training subsidies were increased, but this was done only at the expense of the other schemes. Money taken from the Special Youth Employment Training Program has not been reallocated to other schemes to alleviate the unemployment problem or to assist in job creation schemes.

There are justifiable alternatives to these schemes, such as direct subsidies to employers in areas badly hit by unemployment. This would involve payments to employers who make net increases to their labour force. The CRAFT scheme has been expanded, but only at the expense of the disadvantaged unemployed young. It is the unskilled unemployed who are bearing the brunt of this Government’s savage measures. Age pensioners have a rough time of it, for sure; but at least they are means tested from a base level of $20 for single pensioners and $34 for married couples and they have health cards. The unemployed are means tested from $6 a week. This amount ought to be raised immediately to pensioner levels. The under- 18 unemployed without dependants have been pegged on $36 a week since 1975. That means that there has been a 60 per cent reduction in real terms. They need at least a $2 1 a week increase to bring them back to 1975 levels.

There will be no prospect for work for most of these young people in Warilla, and other places like it, because there is no growth in employment under this Government. It is an absolute disgrace for the Government to curtail activities embarked upon under the Community Youth Support Scheme. If this Government cannot find jobs for young people, the very least it can do is to keep funding the youth support schemes on last year’s levels. This gutless abrogation of responsibility by this myopic, ad hoc Government disillusions and destroys our youth. They are our future, and this Government will eventually taste their wrath at the ballot box.

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West). If he is so concerned about the youth of Warilla, he will be overjoyed with the news that each month this year the number of unemployed in Warilla has fallen and the number of unemployed in the Warilla Commonwealth Employment Service office area in relation to the final statistics is lower than it was in the same month of last year. He will be overjoyed to know that. The figures are available for him. For him to come into this House and make the sort of disreputable and disgraceful speech that he did tonight, knowing the fact that unemployment in

Warilla is lower than it was in the same month of last year -

Mr West:

– I raise a point of order. The point of order is this -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member has not received the call. I am in the process of giving the honourable member for Cunningham the call on a point of order.

Mr West:

– My point of order is that the honourable member for Macarthur just referred to my speech as being disreputable. I think you, Mr Deputy Speaker, ought to rule that that is untrue and unparliamentary.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr BAUME:

-I do not need devices like that to interrupt him when he is speaking. But, if he wishes to interrupt me when I am presenting the facts of what is happening in Warilla, that is up to him. The facts are these: Unemployment is going down in Warilla; the statistics show it. The reason why it is going down is that this Government is increasing the number of jobs available in the area and industry is employing more people. I remind him that what happened under the Labor Government was that the number of jobs went down in this area- and for one very good reason, apart from the chaos of inflation that brought massive unemployment to the whole of the Illawarra region. One specific factor in the region- the honourable member knows it- is that the 25 per cent across-the-board tariff cut removed the jobs of large sections of people in the manufacturing industry in Warilla. The Australian Labor Party can never escape from that fact. It deliberately caused the basic unemployment in that area. The statistics are there. The honourable member knows them and that is why he did not quote them. He knows perfectly well what the facts are. He knows that there has been a dramatic reduction in male unemployment. It is just unfortunate for the honourable member for Cunningham that we happen to share the CES area. Warilla also covers part of my electorate so I keep an eye on him when he gets up in this House and seeks to mislead and deceive it by talking arrant and utter nonsense.

Mr West:

– Send your speech to these people in Warilla.

Mr BAUME:

– I have, in fact, exchanged correspondence with the chairman of the Community Youth Support Scheme in Warilla who wrote to the newspaper making an incorrect statement by attacking the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) by claiming that he was wrong when he said that there was a better situation for employment in Australia. The chairman of that scheme wrote- in conjunction with the chairman of the Wollongong CYSSsaying: ‘We cannot see evidence in that area’. I wrote to them saying: ‘I point out to you the facts. These are the statistics. ‘ The chairman has written back to me saying: ‘I agree with you. They are the statistics. However, we were simply trying to express our concern about unemployment’. That is fair enough. There is no doubt about it. He said: ‘I am not endeavouring to politicise the matter’. I accept that point of view.

Mr Ruddock:

– He dissociates himself.

Mr BAUME:

– Yes, I hope that he dissociates himself from the sorts of points that are being made by the honourable member for Cunningham. I stress that the CYSS chairman wrote to me stressing that he did not want to get into a politicised situation over unemployment. He wanted to express his concern. There is no doubt that he, perhaps prompted by the sort of wrong information that is given by the honourable member for Cunningham, genuinely believed that unemployment was getting worse. It is not in that area.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I advise the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) that he should get a loudspeaker system when he next speaks at a meeting in his town because he obviously has a quite significant case of laryngitis.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! Honourable members on my right will remain silent. The honourable member for Prospect has completed his diagnosis. He is allowed to proceed.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I hope that I am allowed to proceed notwithstanding the reaction from the other side. What I am going to speak about now may be accorded more unanimity in this House. I made a trip overseas during the recess. I arranged with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) to see Vietnamese refugees who had recently arrived in camp in Hong Kong. This was on about 16 August. I think it is well to remember that there was a conference in Geneva on about 2 1 July of this year at which the Vietnamese Government agreed not to push people out of the country, at least not at the rate at which it had been doing so until then. While in Hong Kong I was taken by the Hong Kong authorities to the first staging camp which is basically a quarantine camp in

Hong Kong harbour. Two boats had just arrived. They were relatively small fishing boats, one with 66 persons aboard, the other with 73 persons aboard. I suggest to those honourable members who have significant reservations about allowing Vietnamese refugees to enter this country that they may feel more humanely disposed towards them if they see them when they arrive. They had literally nothing. What few possessions they had were wrapped up in some cloth. There were many small children amongst them- very young children. In fact, there was one baby amongst them who had been born while the mother was on the boat getting out of Vietnam.

I interviewed some of the people who had arrived. As I said, there were two groups. The second group was made up of people who had left Vietnam after 2 1 July. They had left without the knowledge of the Vietnamese Government. They had left from North Vietnam in those two fishing boats. They assured me that they were real refugees in the sense that we talk about refugees. In other words, they had received no cooperation from the Vietnamese Government and they felt sure that if the Vietnamese Government had known of their leaving the country, it would have taken action to prevent their leaving and they would have been in serious trouble. I also interviewed people who had arrived earlier. They had left Vietnam before 2 1 July, before the agreement in Geneva. Those people had come from South Vietnam. They had paid between $2,000 and $3,000 a head in gold to the Vietnamese authorities. As they put it, they had been taken by the Vietnamese security forceswhatever that may mean- in trucks from South Vietnam up to Haiphong harbour in North Vietnam. They were put on boats with petrol, food, et cetera and taken out to sea by security forces, as they again put it, and pointed in the direction of Hong Kong. They then went up the China coast. The Chinese Government co-operates, as I was told by the Hong Kong authorities, in the sense that it provides them with further food, water and petrol and helps them with repairs if they get into trouble. These groups of refugees just go along the Chinese coast until they finally reach Hong Kong.

Large numbers of refugees are at present in Hong Kong. On the day I was there there were some 68,000 Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong in addition to the illegal immigrants from China. The Hong Kong Government is very worried about the fact that we are taking relatively few of these refugees. I can understand why we are taking only a few of them relative to our total quota. They are relatively better off in Hong Kong than they are in Malaysian and Thailand camps and we obviously give preference to people who are in worse trouble. As far as I can make out, once they leave the original transitional camp and go into other camps further inside the city of Hong Kong, they are apparently able to obtain jobs. In fact, there is a shortage of workers in Hong Kong at the present time, and the refugees are able to mix into the local society. I do wish that some of the people in this country, who sling off at the refugees and claim that they are not true refugees but prostitutes and whatever else they are alleged to be, could see these refugees when they arrive in Hong Kong, and see that they are -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

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

– I heard what the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) said this evening during the adjournment debate, seeking to attack the Government for its record in supporting manpower and training programs. I did have the opportunity to hear what the honourable member for Macarthur ( Mr Baume) said when pointing out that in the Warilla district, when comparing this year with last year, there has been a consistent fall in the level of unemployment. As I know, the honourable member for Macarthur is extremely vigilant to make sure that the statements by the honourable member for Cunningham are corrected. Let me put on record some of the things that have been achieved by this Government in the area of manpower and training program. In 1975-76, $40.2m was expended under the National Employment and Training scheme; in 1976-77 the amount was $3 1.6m; in 1977-78 it was $84.8m; and, in 1 978-79, it was $ 1 1 7.8m. That is a record that the former Labor Government could not emulate. We have invested in people whom we believe need training to obtain work experience and also to acquire a skill which is in short supply. This year, the appropriation for NEAT is $67.9m, including the Special Youth Employment Training Program.

The figure is less because of two decisions that were made by the Government in 1978. There was no decision made in the 1 979 Budget which reduced the amount of money required to support the NEAT scheme and SYETP. Those two decisions were: Firstly, in the August 1978 Budget the period of training was reduced from six months to 17 weeks and the amount of rebate payable to employers was reduced from $64 a week to $45 a week. Obviously during 1978-79, with some trainees under the old rates of rebate and for a longer period of training, more money was required. Now that all trainees are on the current rates of training and rebate, less money is required. I would have thought that the honourable member for Cunningham would have appreciated that. Secondly, in December 1978 the Government decided to restrict the eligibility criteria to a special target group of disadvantaged young unemployed. This was done for two reasons. Firstly, it was known that many employers were using the rebate as a direct wate wage subsidy for persons whom they would have employed in any event. I noticed that in the recent Australian Council of Trade Unions congress this practice by employers was condemned. Let me point out to the honourable member that we were in advance of the congress in that regard because in December 1978 we effectively moved to cut out that kind of employer abuse. The other thing that the Government did in December 1978 was to ensure that this money would go to those young unemployed people in real need; in other words, those who would not normally meet the requirements of an employer and hence needed 17 weeks work experience so that they could then go out and compete effectively in the labour market.

This financial year, it is anticipated that some 80,000 predominantly young Australians- but also some older Australians- will receive training under the NEAT and SYETP schemes; 31,000 are to be included under NEAT, itself, 49,000 under SYETP. It is a fact that this year we have increased our expenditure on the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training scheme by $25.9m. That will increase from 56,500 to 85,000 the number who will be supported under CRAFT.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2. 15 p.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at 1 1 p.m.

page 1247

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Radio Frequency Management Division (Question No. 3145)

Mr Lionel Bowen:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. In the 12 month period ending 23 November 1978, what was the number of complaints received relating to television interference problems.
  2. ) How many outstanding complaints were there at that date in the Sydney office and for how long have these complaints been outstanding without appropriate investigation and report.
  3. What was the recommended staff ceiling for the Radio Frequency Management Division of his Department following the review team’s investigation which commenced in October1977.
  4. What was the ceiling finally approved by the Prime Minister in respect of that recommendation.
  5. If there was a reduction by the Prime Minister in the ceiling, what was the reason for the reduction.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. It is not possible to provide this figure as at 23 November 1978. However, for the 12 month period ending 30 November1978, my Department had received18,724 complaints relating to television interference problems.
  2. As at 30 November 1978, there were 989 interference complaints outstanding in the Sydney Office of my Department. The delay in investigating these complaints at that time was in the order of approximately5 months.
  3. , (4) and (5) Staff ceilings are set by the Government in the context of the Budget. They reflect the Government’s view of the staffing resources available to Departments and Authorities. The disposition of staff within ceiling limits to particular programs and activities is a matter for Department’s management. The staff ceiling approved by the Prime Minister for the Postal and Telecommunications Department for1977-78 was 621 .

Flight Catering Centre, Brisbane: Floor Tiles (Question No. 3165)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 21 February1979:

  1. ) Has his attention been drawn to conditions of tender for the supply of floor tiles for the flight catering centre, TAA, Brisbane.
  2. Were tenders called on 24 February 1978 and closed on 7 March 1978.
  3. Was advice given to prospective tenderers that TAA would be itself tendering for the supply of the floor tiles.
  4. Is there any evidence to suggest that TAA had access to competitive tenders.
  5. Was provision made in the tender for preference to Australian manufacture.
  6. Why was it necessary for TAA officers to visit the United States in connection with the supply of the tiles.
  7. Was consideration given to a similar visit to Japan; if not, why not.
  8. Is it a fact that the description in the tender documents of the rejected Nittai tile was incorrect and that the description was in fact the house number of a Melbourne title merchant.
  9. Did TAA tender for the supply of both the United States Olean tiles and the Japanese Nittai tiles.
  10. Is there any evidence that it was intended that TAA would supply the tiles and that the calling of tenders was a device to give a semblance of respectability to that procedure.
Mr Nixon:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. and (4) No.
  3. Because of considerable difficulties experienced with slippery floors TAA’s architects were instructed to research the Australian market prior to inviting tenders with the result that only the American Oleon tile and the Japanese Nittai tile were included in the tender documents. The main criteria employed in selection was the non-slip quality of the tiles and manufacturing tolerance.
  4. Because of the importance of this kitchen to TAA’s operations a short overseas fact finding tour was conducted to study certain kitchen designs and their operation. The use of a particular type of floor tile was only one of many recommendations resulting from this tour.
  5. A visit to Japan was not considered necessary nor economically justifiable as an appropriate range of kitchens was available for inspection in the USA. (See answer for question 6.)
  6. The description of the Nittai tile in the tender document, supplied by the architects, included the manufacturer’s identification data prefixed by identification letters of a local tile importer.
  7. TAA tendered for the supply of American Oleon tiles only.
  8. Tenders were called to obtain the most suitable product on the best terms and conditions available.

Citizen Band Radio (Question No. 3267)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 27 February1979:

Is he satisfied that the present numbers of inspectors policing unlicensed CB radio users and users who modify their equipment in such a way that it interferes with legitimate users of radio equipment are adequate.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

When the CBRS was introduced in July1977 it was realised that in order for the Department to effectively carry out its Regulatory and Licensing responsibility it would be necessary to increase the number of staff engaged in such duties.

Accordingly, a review was carried out within my Department and additional Inspectors were appointed to cope with the increase in regulatory activities brought about by the introduction of the CBRS. The question of arriving at an adequate number of investigatory officers to regulate the CBRS is a most difficult task, investigatory officers are responsible for the regulation of all radiocommunication services and the investigation of abuses within the CBRS must be seen as only part of this overall function.

As the service is utilised by a very large number of mainly inexperienced operators it is believed that its proper regulation will best be achieved by encouraging operators to practice self regulatory measures combined with the oversighting role of Radio Inspectors. It will be appreciated that responsible operating practices are essential in order for the service to efficiently share the spectrum with all other radio communication users.

I am confident that responsible groups within the service such as CREST and the NCRA certainly foster this sense of responsibility and actively encourage operators to practice such self disciplinary measures.

Broadcast Teletext (Question No. 3332)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) What will become of submissions on the introduction of broadcast teletext after 31 March 1979, the date established in his media statement of 12 January 1979, as the deadline for comment on the draft paper released by his Department and Telecom Australia.
  2. ) When did work on the draft paper begin.
  3. Which commercial channels have technology for handling broadcast teletext and when did they acquire it.
  4. What efforts have been made to install that technology in ABC stations.
  5. Has any request been made by the ABC for additional finance for this technology.
  6. What is the next stage for the introduction of broadcast teletext.
  7. By what date does he propose broadcast teletext will be introduced and in operation anywhere in Australia.
  8. Is he able to say in which countries a system such as broadcast teletext exists.
  9. Is he able to say whether technicians of certain commercial stations where teletext technology is installed, believe that from an engineering point of view, immediate introduction of teletext (i.e. within 3 months) on a regular operational basis is quite possible, contrary to the view expressed in the draft paper.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. Following my Department’s survey of submissions received in response to the Discussion Paper, I have received a preliminary report, and draft system standards have been circulated to the industry. The report indicates a spread of views on the merits of an early introduction of standards and whether the British system should now be adopted.

The submissions are currently being examined in detail, taking into account the merits of competing systems including the Canadian TELIDON system displayed by Canadian experts in Australia in August. When I have received a further report based on these studies, I will provide the honourable member with more information. I am not able to say when this report can be finalised as the responsible staff are currently engaged in preparations for the World Administrative Radio Conference 1979.

  1. Preparation of the Discussion Paper on the introduction of broadcast teletext, including draft system standards, commenced in October 1978. This was based on earlier study work.
  2. Applications to transmit teletext test transmissions have been received from the following commercial stations:
  1. ABN in Sydney and associated transmitters in NSW commenced radiating engineering tests in September 1977. These teletext test papers are electronically generated and the text is fixed. There are four pages, the texts being chosen to represent the most difficult texts likely to be encountered under operational conditions.

In January 1978 a ‘data bridge’ was installed at ABV in Melbourne, to allow the ABN teletext pages to be radiated from the ABV transmitter and associated transmitters in Victoria.

The test pages are carried to Melbourne on program on the south bound dedicated Telecom bearer between ABN and ABV studios. These test transmissions continue to be radiated.

  1. No. The equipment to provide the test transmission was purchased from the ABC’s capital equipment budget.

When standards have been set, and operational broadcasts are authorised, the ABC will require capital and ongoing operational funding (including staff) to operate the service. Each State will require equipment. Operationally, initial economies might be possible by the use of ‘data bridges’ and providing the Eastern States with a service from Sydney.

  1. and (7) I have accepted a recommendation from my Department to defer any decision on teletext system standards until after the further report referred to in pan I has been presented to me. Therefore, I am not able to offer a date when broadcast teletext services may commence.
  2. 8 ) I am aware that teletext technology is being developed in a number of countries, including the following: The United Kingdom, France, Canada and Japan. In the United Kingdom a regular service has already been established.
  3. It would be possible to introduce teletext in Australia on a regular operational basis now. However, I believe that any decision for its introduction, without adequate consideration of the merits of competing systems and without some degree of international standardisation of systems, would be quite premature. We should consider the position of members of the public, who might be required to purchase the necessary adaption unit or special receiver models, before making such a decision.

Coastal Surveillance Services (Question No. 3897)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has a contract been granted to the firm Transwest Air Charter to provide coastal surveillance services.
  2. If so, (a) what are the terms of the contract, (b) what section of the Australian coastline is to be kept under surveillance by the firm and (c) what is the duration of the contract.
  3. Who were the proprietors of the firm and what was their nationality as at 1 July 1978 and 28 February 1979.
  4. Was the firm advised at any time by his Department or associates that it should acquire an Australian partner.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) The contract is basically in accordance with the advertised terms and conditions; it is a lengthy document and I am arranging for a copy to be made available to the honourable member. Significant provisions of the agreement are:

    1. Contractor to provide Aero Commander ‘Shrike ‘ primary aircraft crewed by a pilot holding a commercial licence with Class 1 Instrument Rating, and two adult observers. Cessna 310R aircraft may be used as a back-up;
    2. Operations to comply with the requirements of the Air Navigation Act, Orders and Regulations;
    3. Flights to be carried out daily;
    4. Contract price is the total of a daily standing charge of $252.08 for each of four sectors plus the cost of hours flown at rates of $70.96 per hour for the Shrike’ or $75.1 8 for the Cessna 3 10R;
    5. v) Prices are variable in respect of variations in costs of labour, fuel, spare parts, etc;
    6. Normal default and termination provisions.
    1. b) Geraldton to Bigge Island in West Australia.
    2. The contract expires on 28 February1 981 .
  3. I am advised that Trans- West Air Charter (WA) Pty Ltd is a subsidiary of Westralian Aviation (Services) Pty Ltd, a company wholly owned by Z.F. Australia Pty Ltd, which is owned by Zung Fu Co. Ltd, Hong Kong. The ownership position was the same as on 1 July1979 and 28 February1979.
  4. In February1976,I advised Westralian Aviation that Trans- West Air Charter (WA) Pty Ltd could continue to hold the air service licences it then held, in the event that Z.F. Australia Pty Ltd acquired the50 per cent shareholding in Westralian Aviation it did not already hold.

Prior to that time Airfast Helicopters Pty Ltd held50 per cent of the shares in the Westralian Aviation Group and Z.F. Australia Pty Ltd held the remaining50 per cent. When Airfast Helicopters was placed in the hands of Receivers, Australian buyers for that Company’s shareholding in the Westralian Aviation Group could not be found. The Group was the largest organisation in Western Australia in charter work, aircraft sales, aviation engineering and flying training and, if it were allowed to fail, it was considered that a period of industrial instability could result. Other operators did not have the financial resources to provide replacement services and facilities quickly and the Group’s employees’ jobs would probably be lost. In these circumstances I agreed to the acquisition of Airfast ‘s shareholding in the Group by Z.F. Australia. I advised solicitors for the Westralian Aviation Group that its ownership position would be monitored.

Since 1976 my Department has frequently approached Trans- West Air Charter (WA) Pty Ltd for advice on the progress of its attempts to acquire Australian equity. The most recent approach was made in March 1979. The Company advises that it had not been successful in its endeavours to attract Australian equity.

International Air Services (Question No. 4046)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 May1 979:

  1. Which international airlines operating to Australia have agreed to cut their capacity into and out of the country, since 1976.
  2. By how many seats have these services been reduced.
  3. How many of these airlines have cut the number of services to and from Australia, and which airlines are involved.
Mr Nixon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)to(3)Since 1976:

Qantas for commercial reasons has withdrawn its service from Tahiti and suspended its service to Mauritius and South Africa;

Air New Zealand services between New Zealand/Singapore/Hong Kong no longer operate via Australia;

Air India suspended one of its services to Australia for operational reasons;

Olympic Airways suspended its services to Australia for commercial reasons.

It is not possible to provide the number of seats that resulted from the withdrawal or suspension of these services because airlines operate multiple destination flights and do not specifically allocate seats on their services to any one destination. It should be recognized, however, that as a result of compensating and/or additional services introduced by these or other international airlines since1976, the number of seats available on most of the routes affected by the changes mentioned above would, in fact, have increased during the period.

Training Programs: National Youth Conference (Question No. 4259)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June1979:

  1. ) Which companies in each State receiving wage subsidies have received (a) more than $20,000 but less than $50,000, (b) more than $50,000 but less than $80,000, (c) more than $80,000 but less than $100,000 and (d) more than $100,000 since the inception of the Special Youth Employment Training Program.
  2. How many persons were being trained under the National Employment and Training scheme in (a) Australia, and (b) each of the States as at (i) 30 April and (ii) 31 May 1979.
  3. How many trainees were classified as (i) formal NEAT trainees and (ii) on-the-job (normal and SYETP) trainees as at the same dates.
  4. What percentage of the Labour force do these classifications represent.
  5. What is the anticipated cost of staging the National Youth Conference and what sums will be spent on ( a ) travel, (b) accommodation and (c) publicity.
  6. How many persons will attend the Conference, what criteria will be used to determine the eligibility of participants and how many unemployed young persons will attend.
  7. What criteria will be used to select persons attending the Conference.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The records held by my Department are not in a form which would enable this information to be extracted without excessive use of resources.
  2. and (3) The numbers in training under the National Employment and Training System as at end April and end May 1979 classified as formal NEAT, normal on-the-job NEAT and SYETP were as follows:
  1. Based on the latest estimate of the Australian Labour Force issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in April 1 979 the numbers in Training in each category under NEAT at end April as a percentage of the labour force were: formal trainees 0.07 per cent, normal on-the-job 0.08 per cent, SYETP 0. 1 3 per cent. For end May the figures were: formal trainees 0.06 per cent, normal on-the-job 0.08 per cent, SYETP 0.1 4 per cent.
  2. The budget for the National Youth Conference is as follows:

    1. travel-$!7,000
    2. accommodation and meals- $16,000
    3. printing and postage- $16,500
    4. campaign for public awareness and involvement^ 1,500.
  3. and (7) There will be 120 young people invited to attend the Conference: two-thirds of them nominated by industry, employer and union groups, youth organizations and community bodies; one-third will be chosen from young people who respond to the invitation to call Youthline on 5 September 1979. Selection will be made with a view to ensuring a good mix of young people from all over Australia.

Airport Safety (Question No. 4279)

Mr Kerin:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) Can he say how many passenger aircraft worldwide have crashed with capacities of (a) 50-100, (b) 101-200, (c) 201-300 and (d) 301 and over passengers and what distances from take-off or landing (in kms) have these accidents occurred during each year since 1975.
  2. Can he also say how many international airports are (a) within and (b) beyond 10 kilometres of the central business district of the city they serve.
  3. 3 ) What is the population of the cities they serve.
  4. How many airline passengers have passed through Sydney Kingsford-Smith Airport, (a) direct and (b) in transit, during each year since 1975.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The information available to my Department in respect of overseas aircraft accidents is in many cases not comprehensive enough to provide completely accurate data in the form requested. In particular the precise distance from take-off or landing is often not reported nor can it be reliably deduced from the information given. Further, passenger capacity is rarely stated, and this can vary widely for a given aircraft type depending on the particular seating configuration in use. Within these limitations the following tables present as accurate a picture as can be gained from available sources of information. They relate to major accidents in which the aircraft was severely damaged or destroyed.
  1. In Australia the international airports at Sydney, Brisbane, Darwin and Perth are less than10 km from the central business districts of their respective cities whilst Melbourne International Airport is more than10 km.

World wide there are approximately 700 airports which accept international nights and it is difficult to compile statistics on them all. Generally it is possible to say that the present day trend is to build international airports further away from cities than previously. Melbourne Airport is the most recently constructed Australian international airport and follows this trend being the only one over 10 km from its central business district in this country. However, the18 km from Melbourne Airport to the city is much less than the distances involved at some overseas locations such as 34 km from Washington-Dulles airport to the centre of Washington DC or 35 km from Rome-Leonardo Da Vinci airport to the centre of Rome.

  1. The population of the Australian cities with international airports are:

Sydney-3,155,200(June 1978 data)

Melbourne-2,717,600 (June 1978 data)

Brisbane-1,064,510 (June 1978 data)

Perth-843,800(June 1977 data)

Darwin-46,850 (June 1977 data)

Primary Industry: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4285)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 June1979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motor cycles by make, are operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in part(1).
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the Honourable Member to the answerprovided by the Minister for Administrative Services to Question on Notice No. 4299 (See Hansard,11 September 1979, page 972).

Employment and Youth Affairs: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4294)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare, (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motor cycles by make, are operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business undertakings under his control.
  2. What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in part(1).
Mr Viner:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer to Question No. 4299 provided by the Minister for Administrative Services(Hansard,11 September1979).

Science and the Environment: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4301)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 7 June1979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare, (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motor cycles by make, are operated by the Department of Science and the Environment and statutory authorities and business undertakings under the Minister’s control.
  2. What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in part(1).
Mr Groom:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Minister for Administrative Services answer to House of Representatives Question No. 4299 (Hansard,11 September1 979, page 972 ).

Home Affairs: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 4306)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 7 June1979:

  1. How many (a) motor cars and station wagons by make and tare, (b) trucks and other commercial vehicles by make and mass and (c) motor cycles by make, are operated by his Department and statutory authorities and business under takings under his control.
  2. What is the average fuel consumption (kilometres per litre) of each type and make of motor vehicle referred to in part (1).
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer to Question No. 4299 provided by the Minister for Administrative Services (Hansard,11 September 1979, pages 972-3).

Aboriginals Registered for Employment (Question No. 4366)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:

What is the distribution of Aboriginals registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service by (a) adult and (b) junior status and (i) metropolitan and (ii) non-metropolitan location.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

The most recent statistics of the number of Aboriginals registered as unemployed and awaiting placement at Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service throughout Australia are for 3rd August 1979. These statistics show the following distribution:

It should be noted that the basis of the metropolitan/nonmetropolitan classification in Commonwealth Employment Service statistics is location of office at which the client is registered. All offices in the Northern Territory are classified as non-metropolitan.

North Australia Railway (Question No. 4392)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1 979:

  1. What expenditure was incurred by the Australian National Railways Commission on the operation of the North Australia railway for (a) general maintenance and (b) rehabilitation of rail tracks, bridges, and facilities during (i) 1976-77, (ii) 1977-78 and (iii 1978-79.
  2. How many persons were engaged on duties associated with North Australia railway activities during (a) 1976-77, (b) 1977-78 and (c) 1978-79.
  3. How many persons are currently employed by North Australia railway and what are their specific duties.
  4. What preparations would be necessary to enable North Australia railways to recommence freight operations and what dme period would be required for those preparations.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Expenditure incurred by the Australian National Railways Commission on the operation of the North Australia Railway was as follows:

    1. General maintenance 1 976-77- 1 978-79- nil.
    2. Rehabilitation of rail tracks, bridges and facilities 1 976-77- 1978-79-nil.

Certain costs, however, were involved with closing down operations, following cessation of services as from 30 June 1976.

  1. The number of persons engaged on duties associated with the North Australia Railway during the period 1 976-77- 1 978-79 was as follows: 1 July 1976-182, 1 July 1977-32, 1 July 1978-Nil.
  2. No persons are currently employed by the North Australia Railway.
  3. The preparations necessary and the time period required to recommence freight operations on the North Australia railway would depend upon the expected volume and frequency as well as the degree of reliability and safety of the service. Factors involved in recommencing freight operations have not been examined. As the Honourable Member will be aware, the Bureau of Transport Economics, in its Darwin and Northern Territory Freight Transport Study, concluded that the Alice Springs to Darwin corridor is best served by road. However, I have agreed with the Northern Territory Minister for Transport and Works that a joint study be undertaken into the benefits and the costs of a standard gauge rail link between Darwin and Alice Springs. The study will embrace broader considerations than the immediate economic evaluations.

International Airport at Cairns (Question No. 4495)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 August 1 979:

  1. Which Federal and Queensland State Departments have been involved in feasibility studies for a new international airport at Cairns, Queensland.
  2. Have any sites been proposed to date other than the site occupied by the existing airport: if so, have the alternative sites included Yarrabah Aboriginal Reserve.
  3. Has a minor re-alignment of the existing airstrip, which would avoid encroachment on Yarrabah Reserve, been proposed, if not, why not.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Commonwealth Department of Transport investigated alternative sites to the present airport in 1 975-76 but no suitable site within a reasonable distance of Cairns was found. Apart from these investigations, I am not aware of any Federal or Queensland State Department having been involved in feasibility studies for a new international airport at Cairns.
  2. The investigations in 1975-76 included the Yarrabah Aboriginal Reserve but this location was found to be unsuitable.
  3. The existing airstrip at Yarrabah Reserve is an Authorised Landing Area (ALA) authorised for use by light aircraft under my Department’s general requirements applicable to ALA’s. My Department does not have direct control over the airstrip which is the responsibility of the landholder concerned. Whilst my Department will advise those responsible for ALA’s it is not responsible for proposing changes such as the re-alignment of flight strips.

Public Transport (Question No. 4502)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 29 August 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the Prime Minister’s statement on energy of 27 June 1 979 when he said that in the long run, significant savings in the use of energy might be effected by means of improved, more efficient urban mass transit systems.
  2. What has been the total expenditure by the Federal Government on public transport in each State in the last5 years.
  3. What steps will he take to improve public transport and what additional funds will he make available to the States to fulfil the Prime Minister’s promise.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes. Details of financial assistance to each State over the last five years are provided in the table below.
  1. The Commonwealth is continuing to work with the States to improve public transport systems in Australia’s major urban areas. Under the Commonwealth’s1978-83 urban public transport program a further $220m will be provided to the States over the remaining three years of the program, 1 980-8 1 - 1 982-83, as two-thirds of the cost of approved capital investment projects. This amount, in addition to the $80m made available to the States during the first two years of the program, provides for substantial improvement in and increased efficiency of urban mass transit systems.

Australian Capital Territory: Government Housing (Question No. 4520)

Mr Willis:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 29 August1 979:

  1. ) What is the total stock of Government housing in the Australian Capital Territory, sub-divided by type.
  2. How many of these units, by type, were vacant as at the most recent date for which information is available.
  3. Is there a waiting list for public housing; if so, how many households are on the waiting list.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

I am informed by my Department that:

) Stock of dwellings

Houses-7,688; Flats-3,253; Total-10,941.

Vacant stock

Houses-209; Flats-202; Total-41 1.

Numberofpeopleonwaitinglist

Houses- 191; Flats- 172; Total-363.

The number of dwellings vacant is in part a reflection of the considerable amount of work involved in the reletting process, which includes inspection, cleaning and maintenance of vacated dwellings before offering them to applicants on the waiting list. Of the 411 dwellings vacant at 30 June1 979, 220 were receiving or about to receive maintenance.

Parliamentary Delegations (Question No. 4546)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 August1979:

Will he provide a breakdown of costs for the Parliamentary delegations to (a) India and South East Asia,1978, (b) Japan, 1978, (c) Europe and the USSR, 1978, (d) France, 1978, (e) Africa, 1979, (f) ASEAN countries and South Korea, 1979, (g) France, 1979 and (h) Southern Rhodesia, 1979.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

The breakdown of costs, including advances, brought to account in Australia up to 29 August1 979 is shown below.

Trans-Australia Airlines (Question No. 4618)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Newcastle Morning Herald of 23 April 1979 entitled ‘TAA sale under review: Robinson’; if so, is he now able to say whether the sale of (a) TAA and (b) other statutory authorities would result in a lessening demand on Government spending.
  2. What action has he taken to obtain a copy of the article.
  3. If the position is not as stated in the article when will he take advantage of the forms of the House of disclaim the substance of the articles.
Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 refer the honourable member to the answer given to his Question No. 38S0 (Hansard, 1 1 September 1979, page 977).
  2. None, but a copy of the article referred to was forwarded to me by the honourable member on 12 September 1 979 and received by me on 1 3 September 1 979.
  3. 3 ) 1 do not propose to make any comment on this article.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 September 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19790918_reps_31_hor115/>.