House of Representatives
20 February 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

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

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

page 95

DEATH OF MR D. J. CURTIN

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House of the death of Mr D. J. Curtin, a former member of this House. The death, on 4 February, of Mr Curtin was made known to me only late yesterday. Mr Curtin represented the division of Watson from1949 to1955 and the division of Kingsford-Smith from1955 to1969. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased former member, I invite all honourable members to rise in their places.

Honourable members having stood in their places

Mr SPEAKER:

– I thank the House.

page 95

PETITIONS

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

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann, Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Falconer, Mr Lloyd and Mr Martyr.

Petitions received.

Refugees

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burns and Mr Giles.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The support for and endorsement of the National Women’s Advisory Council.

We call on the government to: continue to maintain the National Women’s Advisory Council and increase federal government support for its activities.

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

Petitions received.

Unemployment

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

  1. That the Government adopt positive policies to reduce unemployment;
  2. That the basic Unemployment Benefit be raised to at least the level of the poverty line as calculated by Professor Henderson;
  3. in line with other Social Service additional income awards, and in order to encourage work creation schemes and the fostering of initiative and self respect, that the $6.00 per week additional income limit be raised to at least $20.00 per week;
  4. That the financial penalties above the earning of $20.00 per week, assessed on a monthly basis, be calculated at the same rate as other Social Security benefits;
  5. That the Commonwealth grant subsidies to state governments so that the unemployed can be granted transport concessions in order that they are not penalised in job seeking.
  6. That pharmaceutical and medical concessions be granted to the unemployed equivalent to those received by other Social Service beneficiaries.

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

Petition received.

Sale of Publicly Owned Enterprises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Muscular Dystrophy

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:

We wish to express dismay at the current inadequacies of medical research funds particularly into the condition of muscular dystrophy and petition the Government to substantially increase medical research funds available for the study of this disease.

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

Petition received.

Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of N.S.W. respectfully showeth:

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

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

We call on the Government to again examine the proposals as set out in the guidelines for Education expenditure 1980 and to immediately restore and increase substantially in real terms the allocation of funds for education expenditure in1980 to Government schools.

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

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Bus Service

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens and public transport users of the ACT respectfully showeth:

That the closure of certain ACTION bus ticket sales outlets, effective19 November1979, is not in the best interests of the bus travelling public in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore pray that this decision be rescinded.

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

Petition received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 97

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs leaves Australia today to attend the ANZUS council meeting in Washington. The Minister for Health will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs until Mr Peacock ‘s return.

Mr Keating:

– I rise to a point of order. Yesterday the Foreign Minister was not listed to speak, and did not speak in the foreign affairs debate. Am I to take it from the Government that he will not participate in this major debate on foreign affairs.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

page 97

AGENT ORANGE

Notice of Motion

Mr BURNS:
Isaacs

– I give notice that on the nc -‘.t day of sitting I shall move:

That whilst this House commends the prompt action by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs in ordering a study by the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine at Sidney University into the possible affects of Agent Orange on Vietnam veterans and their dependants, it asks that he ensure that-

the study be broad enough to cover the use of all herbicides, pesticides and repellants used in Vietnam;

an independent panel of eminent scientific persons be established to monitor and review the study;

this panel to include at least one person nominated by the Vietnam Veterans ‘ Organisation; and

that a national register be established of all herbicides and pesticides imported into Australia.

page 97

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 97

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. Are the plans for an alternative Olympic Games which he discussed with President Carter very much dependent on the use of facilities prepared for the last Olympics at Montreal? If so, has he noted the clear indications given by Prime Minister Trudeau that he will not support the Olympic boycott which was warmly endorsed by the former vanquished Prime Minister? If Canada does not join the boycott, what other venues are feasible for the alternative Games which the Prime Minister is bent on sponsoring?

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not propose to call a Minister until I feel reasonably sure that he can be heard in silence.

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

– The question of alternative sites around the world for the Games is the subject of consideration between the Australian Government and other governments. At the moment what is more likely is that various competitions will be held in various places around the world; that is to say, they will not all be held in the same place. As I indicated to the House yesterday, it is the Government’s view, based on present information, that there will be an effective boycott of the Olympic Games and that there will be a need to give our athletes an opportunity for international competition. It is quite obvious that the Opposition wishes to make a base political point of this matter. Instead of the Leader of the Opposition getting behind the statement he originally made about an effective boycott being a strong indication to the Russians about our attitude over Afghanistan, for base political reasons the Opposition is now trying to divide our athletes from the rest of the community. I can assure the Opposition that that will not work.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no need for the continual interjections. A question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition to obtain information. The House ought to hear the information being given in the answer.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– A clear indication of the attitude of Opposition members is that every time they think they can score a point because some Western country may not support a boycott they cheer like mad. It is a political attitude that they are following. Opposition members are trying to divide the athletes of this country from the rest of the community.

Opposition members- Ha, ha!

Mr ELLICOTT:

– Opposition members can laugh about it, but in a month’s time they will find that the laugh will be on the other side of their faces.

page 97

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of recent experiences of political interference, terrorism and cost increases at the Olympic Games, does the Prime Minister agree that the Olympic spirit would be well served by holding the Games in Greece in future years? What diplomatic and financial support would the Government give to any such proposal?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Government places a great deal of importance on being able for the future to re-establish the Olympic ideal in a way which will enable the athletes of the world to compete free of partisan politics of one kind or another. The Government has discussed the concept of having a permanent site for the Games in Greece. If that were the wish of a number of governments whose countries are represented on the International Olympic Federation, this Government would support not only morally but also financially the establishment of that permanent dedicated site under the hands of the Olympic Federation. But I know that there are differing views amongst sporting bodies. A number like the idea of being able to attract the Olympic Games to their own country and to their own capital. But also we need to understand that there is a very great inequality in that approach because many countries just cannot alford the funds and just do not have the facilities to mount a modern Olympics. Therefore, the number of countries that can provide the very large sum- in total it may be $ 1,000m or $l,500m-does restrict the present method of holding the Olympics to a relatively small number of countries. That is clearly a drawback from the concept that has prevailed over quite some years. As I understand it a recent meeting of the International Olympic Federation at Lake Placid made decisions which put to study these various alternatives. If the Federation comes out in favour of a permanent site in Greece, that is certainly a concept that this Government would have no difficulty supporting, verbally and financially.

page 98

QUESTION

TRADE EMBARGO

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Trade and Resources able to assert unequivocally that wool exports from Austraiian primary producers are not being used to clothe Russian soldiers in Afghanistan? Is he able to assert unequivocally that Australian cattle hide exports are not being sold to Poland for the manufacture of the military boots on which the Russian army marched during its bloody invasion of Afghanistan? Is the Minister able to assert unequivocally that production of wealthy Australian political graziers, including the Prime Minister, is not being used to sustain the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Is he able to assert unequivocally that the Government’s philosophy is not roubles before runners?

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

– I think that a few facts need to be spelt out to help the honourable member to understand the situation. I suppose that any material or commodity traded with Russia could, if one used one’s imagination enough, be interpreted as having some military purpose or significance. But the fact of the matter is that under the arrangements of the Co-ordinating

Committee on Exports of Technology to Communist Countries- that is countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Japan- when it has studied strategic technology and materials that might be sent to communist countries it has never considered wool to be a strategic material. If the honourable member wants to make an issue to try to embarrass the Australian Government, let him understand that the Soviet Union has the biggest sheep flock in the world. It is larger than ours by about 10 million head. The amount of wool that we send to the Soviet Union meets only about 10 per cent of its needs. In other words, if we were unilaterally to ban the export of wool, to the Soviet Union it could make other arrangements either to replace or to reduce the amount it requires. Those people who argue that we should ban trade because it might have some military association are virtually saying that we should ban all trade with the Soviet Union.

Mr Armitage:

– I asked -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The honourable member for Chifley asked his question, apparently seeking information. I ask him to remain silent while the Minister replies.

Mr Armitage:

-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I asked specifically -

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr Armitage:

– I have not stated my point of order yet, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Armitage:

– I have not stated my point of order yet.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Armitage:

– My point of order is that I asked -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Chifley.

Mr Armitage:

– Can’t I make a point of order in the House?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Minister.

Mr ANTHONY:

-I was making the point that there are those who argue that anything that might have some military association should be banned. That means that in those circumstances all trade with the Soviet Union ought to be banned. What point is there in Australia’s banning trade with the Soviet Union if other people are likely to replace our trade? All we would be doing is hurting ourselves. There would be no sense in that arrangement. I can understand members of the Labor Party trying to suggest that wool sales to the Soviet Union ought to be banned. They have no concern for one of Australia ‘s great industries. They do not care if the ban has no effect at all. All they want to do is to cause concern amongst the Australian wool industry. They believe that this is one of the ways of getting at the Government. Probably the whole case can be clarified very simply if I quote the following words:

There is absolutely no point in empty gestures, or counterproductive measures that damage Australia or disadvantage our national interest more than they do the Soviet Union.

Who said those words? None other than the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.

page 99

QUESTION

HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SOVIET UNION

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. What action has the Government taken to condemn the Soviet Union following the arrest and placement of Dr Andrei Sakharov into exile? Has the Government yet considered the report on Human Rights in the Soviet Union which was prepared and tabled by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence?

Mr Jacobi:

– The question is on the Notice Paper but I do not formally object.

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

– The Government has condemned the Soviet Union’s persecution of the well-known human rights activist, Andrei Sakharov.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Is the honourable member for Hawker taking a point of order?

Mr Jacobi:

– No, I will not, Mr Speaker. It is on the Notice Paper. I would like to have answered the question of Sakharov.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Then I ask him to remain silent.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– As I was saying, the Government has condemned the Soviet Union’s persecution of Andrei Sakharov who is reported to have been arrested, deprived of his state honours and sent into internal exile. The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs issued a statement on 23 January deploring this incident. This latest act of persecution is yet another example of the Soviet authorities’ flagrant disregard for the human rights principle embodied in United Nations instruments and the 1975 Helsinki accords. I think the inference could be drawn that the timing of the persecution of Andrei

Sakharov hardly seems accidental. It may suggest a direct linkage to Soviet sensitivity over Afghanistan and a desire to remove the embarrassing presence of dissidents from the view of visitors to the Olympic Games. The Government’s deep concern about the treatment of Sakharov and other persons prominent in the human rights movement in the Soviet Union has been voiced publicly as I have already said, and has been conveyed to the Soviet authorities through their Ambassador in Canberra. The Government will continue to make our views known to the Soviet Union and to other governments which continue to deny fundamental civil and political rights to many of their citizens.

The honourable gentleman asked about the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Human Rights in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I believe that that report may be debated in this chamber in the next week or so. To my knowledge this report is the outcome of the first formal public parliamentary inquiry by any country into this subject. Naturally enough, it is of great significance. It is an important report. I shall advise Parliament on the result of the Government’s consideration of the report’s recommendations in due course.

page 99

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY VESSELS

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

-The Minister for Defence will recall that on 17 February 1977, two days before the Western Australian elections, he announced in Perth that ships of the Royal Australian Navy would be permanently based at HMAS Stirling. He will also be aware that yesterday, four days before the 1980 Western Australian elections, the Prime Minister informed the House that ships of the Royal Australian Navy would be home based in Western Australia. I ask the Minister: As the announcement made in 1977 indicated that the vessels would be operating from Perth on a permanent basis by early 1979, can he give an indication or assurance to the House that the same announcement will not be made in the week prior to the 1983 Western Australian elections.

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

– I am enormously flattered that the honourable gentleman thinks that I will be here in 1983. According to some people in the Press Gallery I will be in a great variety of places. I would also say to my honourable friend that I am flattered no end, as is the Prime Minister, to think that we are now responsible for determining the dates when the Western Australian elections are held.

page 100

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: Has the Australian dairy industry made any request to the Government to replace the present annually determined minimum price per kilogram butter fat guarantee with a three or live year scheme to allow the industry a basis for forward planning similar to that recently provided for the wheat and canned fruit industries? If there has been no request, will the Minister commence such discussion with the industry when he negotiates the minimum price for the 1980-81 dairy year?

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

– At the time of the Australian Dairy Industry Conference submission for the 1979-80 season the industry made a request for an underwriting to be continued into 1980-81 and 198 1-82. In that submission it proposed that the level of underwriting given in 1979-80 should be adjusted by the consumer price index when making a judgment on the 1981 and 1982 seasons. The Government took the view that a number of changes occurring within the industry were having a pretty marked effect on industry returns and it determined not to guarantee more than the one year. If the Australian Dairy Industry Conference were to come back to us with a similar proposal the Government would be prepared to consider it.

page 100

QUESTION

ORD RIVER IRRIGATION SCHEME

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What action has the Government taken to accept or reject the recommendations of the Young report on the Ord River irrigation scheme? Has the Western Australian Government approached it to implement these recommendations? Has the Government decided to provide most of the $I00m required for the proposed hydro-electric supply to Darwin from the Ord River? If so, how does the Government intend to maintain the supply of hydro-electricity if it becomes necessary to drain Lake Argyle for the purpose of diamond mining?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I am quite certain that the demands of diamond mining would not be met at the expense of other vital and important interests, whether in the Kimberleys or in the Northern Territory. The honourable gentleman has asked a thoughtful and important question. It is a detailed question. There has been a good deal of discussion and correspondence between Sir Charles Court and myself in relation to the Young report. Broadly, the agreement between governments will enable the work to go ahead in a realistic way. I will take the honourable gentleman’s question as a detailed notice to me and I will write to him giving a full and detailed answer on the aspects that he has raised.

page 100

QUESTION

USE OF POISON AND NERVE GAS

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Are reports about the use of poison and deadly nerve gas by Soviet military forces in Afghanistan correct?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I have seen these published reports. I have also asked what basic information is available to us, from our own resources and from those of our friends, in relation to the use of poison gas, or nerve gas, by Soviet forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Some of the information that I have received as a result of those inquiries disturbs me greatly. It needs to be understood that so-called defensive gas units are endemic throughout the Soviet Army in Eastern Europe and in Afghanistan. Such units have been located, without any doubt, in Afghanistan itself. Quite plainly, all armies in a modern environment need defensive measures against gas. The Western armies and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation would have that purely defensive capability.

The difference between the NATO armies, the Western armies, and the Soviet armies is that those so-called defensive units in the Russian armies also carry an offensive capacity. That is not so with the Western armies. The Russian armies carry endemically as part of their natural structure the capacity to use gas, either through artillery or by dropping from aircraft, against particular targets. Whilst we know that such units are located in Afghanistan there is not at this point firm and categoric evidence that gas has been used. There are reports from many refugees who have moved into Pakistan of seeing people exhibiting the symptoms of exposure to nerve gas. Basically nerve gas is designed to kill. Therefore, there must be a supposition that gas has been used. It has not been proved categorically at this point, but units with the capacity to use gas are present in Afghanistan and there is the circumstantial evidence from refugees in Pakistan.

page 100

QUESTION

CANCELLATION OF JOINT FISHING VENTURE WITH RUSSIA

Mr FRY:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he gave a guarantee to the Perth based fishing firm, Craig Mostyn and Co Pty Ltd, that it would be compensated for the losses incurred by the Government decision to cancel the joint fishing venture with the Russian internal fishing authority, Sovrybflot. What arrangements has the Government made with the Western Australian

Government to make good the loss of job and investment opportunities because of the cancellation? Is it a fact that Western Australia is bearing a disproportionate share of Australian measures to punish the Soviet Union for its invasion of Afghanistan?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-When I advised Sir Charles Court of this matter he accepted the justice of the decision, as did Mr Lowe, and indeed, in the circumstances, the necessity for it. Mr Lowe did not equivocate about the matter. He said that in the circumstances we could have taken no other decision, but he wanted to reserve the right, if the Soviets were to be allowed to participate in fishing around our waters, to reactivate that project. Meanwhile I understand that he will be seeking to reactivate it in partnership with other countries against whom the embargo does not exist. I think we need to draw a distinction between prospective gains that may occur if the feasibility of projects is demonstrated and losses that might accrue as a result of a current situation. They are very different.

In relation to Tasmania, for example, whatever benefits there might be have yet to be proved as a result of the feasibility studies. That is similar with feasibility fishing anywhere. The resource has to be proved. It is not, therefore, a question of a loss. It is a question of a prospective gain not being achieved by that particular means. Quite obviously it is open for those supporting that kind of joint venture to put together a proposal with other partners. We would expect and hope that that would be done.

page 101

QUESTION

FISHING VESSELS SIGHTED OFF VICTORIAN COAST

Mr SHORT:
BALLARAT, VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the concern which has been expressed by many persons who observed the presence of considerable numbers of squid fishing vessels off the Victorian coast in recent weeks? Could the Minister inform the House as to the ownership of those vessels; how many vessels are involved; and the nature of their operations, including how close to shore they are permitted to operate? Could he also advise the House of the steps the Government is taking to monitor the operation of these fishing vessels in Victorian waters?

Mr NIXON:
NCP/NP

-The first point I should make is that all foreign vessels in the squid operations fishing in Australian waters are not permitted to fish inside the three-mile limit. Australian fishing vessels that may be part of a joint feasibility study in these operations or which are operating independently can, of course, fish inside the three-mile limit. Therefore, any boats that the honourable member has had drawn to his attention should be Australian fishing boats and not foreign boats. Nine joint feasibility studies have been approved, eight involving Australian and Japanese partners and one involving Australian and Taiwanese partners. I can make the details available to the honourable member. They are already in Hansard, if he cares to look, on 22 November 1979.

Regular surveillance is conducted of foreign fishing activities. Reports come to me about any misdemeanours on the part of the fishing boats taking part and corrective action has been taken when misdemeanours have been reported. Similarly, all vessels are required to report their position every two days, catch reports are required every six days and we have the right to place Australian observers on board the boats, and do so. The feasibility studies are for the 1979-80 season. These fishing operations will conclude in October 1980. 1 should make the point that I had a similar experience one day during the Christmas break when I was out at sea fishing. I was surrounded by about 20 boats. I found that they were not undertaking squid operations. They were fishing within the three-mile limit. I made a call on one of them and I found that they were in fact scallop fishermen.

page 101

QUESTION

MONEY SUPPLY

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Treasurer. I refer him to an answer he gave yesterday in which he said: we intend to maintain the firmest possible stance on our monetary policy objectives. We do not intend to allow anything to subvert them.

As the money supply was growing at a rate of 12 per cent at the end of December and as trading bank deposits, which account for more than half the money supply, were growing by 15 per cent at the end of January, what steps does the Government intend to take to prevent the subversion of its monetary policy objective of keeping the rate of growth of money supply this year to 10 per cent? Will the Treasurer assure the House that any such steps will not result in further increases in interest rates?

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

-As to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I take the opportunity of confirming that the monetary policy objective to which I referred yesterday was in fact the monetary outcome of about 10 per cent that was referred to in the Budget Speech in August of last year. The honourable gentleman and others who study this matter will know that there is a lot of hazard in taking the figures for part of the year and trying to draw hasty conclusions about what they mean in terms of a full year outcome. It goes without saying that a large influx of overseas capital in one month is going to inflate the money supply figures for a period of the year that includes that month. It equally goes without saying that more modest levels of private sector foreign exchange transactions between now and the end of the year are also going to have an effect on the money supply. As to the second part of the question, I do not intend to give the House any assurances about the future level of interest rates.

page 102

QUESTION

WOOL EXPORTS TO SOVIET UNION

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Trade and Resources indicate what factors have been taken into account in considering suggestions that Australia should stop exporting wool to the Soviet Union?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I think the important factors are whether it has strategic significance, as I mentioned before, and what action is taken by other countries. In trying to determine whether a material of any type is strategic we have to listen to the advice of other countries in relation to what they have considered over the years to be a strategic material. As I have mentioned, wool has never been considered a strategic material, nor is it likely to be considered a strategic material, because the Soviet Union is itself a very large producer of wool and can meet most of its requirements.

page 102

QUESTION

FAR EASTERN SHIPPING CORPORATION

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is the Far Eastern Shipping Corporation- FESCO, as it is known- an official freight line of the Soviet Union? Does it transport primary produce exports from Australia at rates up to 20 per cent below normal shipping conference rates? Why did the punitive action taken by the Government against the Soviet Union not include FESCO ‘s operations from Australia? Finally, is the Government’s discrimination against holiday makers and the economies of poorer Pacific island countries by banning Russian cruise ships justified when Russian merchant shipping is permitted to continue trading simply because it gives concessional rates to Australia’s primary producers, including the Prime Minister?

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

– The Government has taken a decision in regard to the Far Eastern Shipping Corporation, but I might indicate to the House that the trading of FESCO is still under review.

Amongst strong measures that had to be taken by the Government to accord with our response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Government decided to suspend the operations of Soviet cruises from Australia as from 31 May. The reason for the advance notice was to minimise any inconvenience to those people who had made advance bookings. In regard to FESCO trading, the Government’s review of Russia’s shipping took into account many factors, including the undesirability of acting unilaterally in respect of Soviet trading vessels and the need fully to take into account the interests of the Australian community. There was no point in Australia’s taking unilateral action on a shipping operation that served a number of ports. Our investigations to date indicate that the cessation of its operations would cause more damage to our trading partners in the area than it would to the Soviet Union, which should be condemned for its actions in Afghanistan.

page 102

QUESTION

SOVIET INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN

Mr CADMAN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. What inferences may be drawn by non-aligned countries, whether in South East Asia, the Middle East, Africa or South America, from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

– I think it is fair to say that members of the non-aligned movement, to which Afghanistan belongs, of course, have been deeply concerned and disturbed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. One of the-basic tenets of non-alignment is that a country should be allowed to conduct its own affairs free from outside interference. Therefore it is not at all surprising that 2 1 members of the non-aligned movement co-sponsored the United Nations’ resolution calling for the total withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. I remind the House that that resolution, which was adopted by the General Assembly by 104 votes to 18, was supported by a total of 56 members of the non-aligned movement. I believe those figures speak for themselves.

As some members of the Opposition have interjected, Cuba belongs to the non-aligned movement. In fact, those members of the nonaligned movement who voted against the resolution included Cuba, Vietnam, Mozambique and Angola. It is well known that those countries can be seen and said to be strongly aligned in a very real sense with the aims and ambitions of the Soviet Union. However, in voting against the resolution, that group was exposed as being at odds with the views of the majority of the nonaligned movement. This position was confirmed by the meeting of the Islamic Foreign Ministers in Islamabad, where 35 non-aligned countries were represented. I think it is fair to say that the response to date from the non-aligned movement indicates that a vast majority of the members of that movement share our concern at the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan and at the unprincipled violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a member of their own movement.

page 103

QUESTION

DEFENCE EQUIPMENT

Mr HAYDEN:

-The Minister for Defence will recall that in yesterday’s 1976 White Paper revisited exercise there were some notable omissions from the list of capital equipment purchases, that is, items which had been included in the 1976 White Paper as representing the bare essentials for defence capital equipment requirements but not included in yesterday’s recycled but condensed version of the 1976 paper. Do these omissions include the HMAS Melbourne replacement, new artillery systems for the Army, and new trucks for the Army? When will decisions be made on these important programs, which are now gravely overdue? What impact will the failure to decide on new army equipment have on the decision to establish a two-battalion ready reaction force at Townsville, bearing in mind that any sort of reaction is difficult in the absence of guns and transport? Will the new measures enable the release from mothballs of a substantial part at least of the Leopard tanks?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for asking those questions because it allows me to take part in replying to some of the observations that he has made at Question Time, but I do not want to abuse the processes of the House. I say to the honourable gentleman that decisions have been taken with respect to the replacement of howitzers and at some time, when it meets the convenience of the House, I will announce those decisions. But they remain in the program, as indeed do the decisions regarding the trucks.

I ask the honourable gentleman to look, not just earnestly but sensibly, at any proposal to replace the Melbourne. There has never come from my lips or from the lips of any person in authority within the Department that there will be a replacement of the Melbourne as an aircraft carrier. What I have said, and said consistently, is that the Department is considering ways and means of continuing the tactical use of air power at sea. There are ways other than using a carrier simpliciter for that purpose. Aircraft can be refuelled over the sea. It is possible that aircraft can be operated from a sea-borne aircraft platform.

If the honourable gentleman thinks that the Government’s approach to defence planning is merely at the end of the life of the Melbourne to replace it without considering all of those enormous implications, then the honourable gentleman is seriously astray. If it would meet the honourable gentleman’s convenience, I would be only too happy to arrange for him and any other members of his Party to have a briefing on the problem.

page 103

QUESTION

MONEY SUPPLY

Sir William McMahon:
LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– My question, directed to the Treasurer, is supplementary to that asked by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Gellibrand. Is it true that the shadow Treasurer is exactly one month out in the figures he presented to the House and therefore that his forecast relating to the money supply is also radically out? Is it true that according to figures published yesterday, new and increased lending commitments were cut back by $35m a week and that overdraft limits grew by only $21m in that time? Is it also true that the net weekly increase in overdraft limits of $5mdreadfully low, I think, if we want the economy to progress- was the smallest for two years? Is it also true that the growth in overdraft limits fell to $33m in November and $2 1 m in December? Is it not also true that if this rate goes on, the Treasurer will, omitting changes in private capital flows, have the money supply figure below 10 per cent and the Labor Party will be belabouring him for that? What were the Labor Government’s performances when it got the figures up to 1 7 per cent and 1 8 per cent with little prospect of success?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-The right honourable gentleman ‘s question enables me to reinforce the point I made in answer to the honourable member for Gellibrand- that there are a lot of pitfalls in relying on one month’s figures, whether they are the figures that support you or do not support you. What has happened and what the right honourable gentleman has emphasised is that in the early part of this financial year there was a very heavy level of bank lending. In fact, it was in relation to that heavy level of bank lending that modest action was taken by the Reserve Bank of Australia in respect of the statutory reserve deposits. It is also true that bank deposits went up very steeply in the month of January as a consequence of the normal post-Christmas change and also as a result of the large amount of money coming in from overseas. The right honourable gentleman is quite right in saying that the level of lending in recent months has been much lower than it was earlier. I do not believe that the reductions in the level of bank lending are any cause for concern so far as the money supply coming in significantly below the10 per cent target is concerned. Naturally, the Government would be concerned to see that that did not occur. I repeat: A money supply outcome of around 10 per cent- and one ought not to die on one or two decimal places- remains entirely appropriate to the anti-inflationary objectives of the Government. We intend to pursue that objective, as I indicated clearly yesterday.

page 104

QUESTION

AFGHANISTAN

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask: is it a fact that the nine European Economic Commission foreign ministers have taken a new initiative in relation to Afghanistan? Is this initiative related to neutralising Afghanistan? If so, will the Government support this milder, more diplomatic approach, and is it in strong contrast to the hawkish grandstanding that we have witnessed to date?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-There have been no official reports to this point from that meeting of the nine foreign ministers. But, on the basis of the Press reports that have occurred, if there is a proposal to neutralise Afghanistan that would obviously involve the withdrawal of 85,000 Soviet troops, so I do not see how that is a weakening of any Western European, United States or Australian position. Indeed, to talk of neutralisation, if it is in terms of the past, might even be a significant strengthening of the position. Even though Afghanistan had been nonaligned, as is well known, over the last couple of years at any rate as a result of the original communist coup- at that stage there had not been a use of Soviet arms and weaponry- there has been a leaning to the Soviet Union. Therefore, if the honourable gentleman wishes to support something which goes back way beyond that to a situation where there is genuine non-alignment, genuine neutrality on behalf of Afghanistan, clearly that would achieve the objectives that the United States is standing for, that Britain is standing for and that Australia would want to stand for. I am very grateful to have the honourable gentleman’s support, but I emphasise- I suspect that his question is based on a Press report and I have tried to be helpful to him-that before we can judge what the nine have done we do need to get an official report.

page 104

QUESTION

DOMESTIC COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. What stage has been reached in the Government’s preparation for the introduction of a domestic communications satellite? Is the Minister aware of some concern being expressed by country television networks as to their future viability with the introduction of the satellite? Is the Minister confident that these problems can be overcome without damaging full radio or television coverage for residents in some of the farflung areas of Australia?

Mr STALEY:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

-The Australian Government’s plans with respect to the introduction of a domestic communications satellite are proceeding well. Many meetings have been held with the Australian industry people involved and also, of course, with representatives of potential overseas suppliers. I emphasise that the Government is most determined to ensure the greatest possible participation by Australian industry in this project. That participation will, of course, be most evident in the ground station area of satellite development.

The important matter of the impact of these developments on regional television stations is well in hand. I advise the House that, in the course of discussions with representatives of the regional stations, it has become quite clear to them that there will not be a threat to their viability or to the concept of localism in satellite developments. Indeed, at the moment I am involved in most interesting discussions with representatives of the regional stations about the extension of television choice throughout the whole of Australia. That will be undertaken in such a fashion that neither localism nor the economic interests of regional stations will be disturbed or in any way destroyed. I finish on this point: Those who set their faces against these sorts of devlopments are setting their faces against developments that will be of enormous benefit to the people of rural Australia. There are people who have no television or little broadcasting of any sort and no prospect of even a telephone within their lifetimes without satellite developments. It is for such reasons, amongst others, that the Government has decided that it will proceed to quite definite contractual arrangements with respect to a domestic communications satellite.

page 104

QUESTION

CHEMICAL WARFARE

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, is supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Denison in relation to modern warfare. The Prime Minister stated that the Russians may be using nerve gas in Afghanistan. I ask him whether, as Minister for Defence or Minister for the Army, he ever voiced disapproval during the period of the Vietnam war of the means of warfare, such as agent orange or napalm, used by our allies.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Australian Government has made decisions about these matters and, as time has passed, different attitudes have been adopted by Western armies, including the Australian Army. Since the first use of gas in the First World War there have been international efforts to outlaw the use of gas, and the kinds of weapons that people might have believed to be appropriate for armies such as the Australian Army have been modified over a long periods of years. I had thought that there was bipartisan support for those modifications and for the rules, which are widely known and understood, in relation to our own armies. I should have thought we would have both wanted to support that. One thing I fail to understand is why in Question Time yesterday, in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and in everything that Senator Wriedt might have said about the reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan, the Australian Labor Party was seeking to find excuse after excuse for that brutal Soviet invasion.

page 105

QUESTION

DEFENCE CAPACITY FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr BUNGEY:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I address a question to the Minister for Defence. I refer to the Government’s proposal to upgrade Australian defence facilities. Can the Minister indicate what additional defence capacity is planned for Western Australia?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– There is to be a very substantial enhancement of defence facilities in Western Australia. The facilities of HMAS Stirling are to be considerably expanded.

Mr Hayden:

– Again.

Mr KILLEN:

-Not again at all.

Mr Hayden:

– Why didn’t you do it when you promised it last time?

Mr KILLEN:

– I remind the Leader of the Opposition that it was left to the present Prime Minister and the present Minister for Defence in a government of years ago not merely to make the decision regarding HMAS Stirling but also to commence the work. The facilities at Learmonth will be considerably expanded. The mention of the name Learmonth reminds me that the airfield there was built by the Royal Australian Air Force Airfield Construction Squadron, a squadron that was disbanded by a government in which the present Leader of the Opposition sat. We would propose to acquire an amphibious exercise area in Western Australia, we would propose to develop an airfield at Derby and we would propose to continue with the establishment of a modern patrol boat facility at Darwin. I can assure the honourable member for Canning, who takes a lively and intelligent interest in his State, that those works will proceed.

page 105

QUESTION

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. In view of his self-acclaimed achievements as Minister for Defence, will he state why the actual program of defence expenditure, both generally and on capital equipment, falls so far short of the five-year defence program he outlined in 1976? Is it a fact that spending at this point is in real terms some $ 1,500m below the level which was set in that report to be achieved by this period? Is it a fact that spending on capital equipment is in real terms some $560m below that level? Is it a fact that in the last two years the value of major new equipment approved in the Budgets has fallen to $103m and $129m respectively, the lowest levels for more than seven years? If he claims that his administration has been one of signal achievement, how can he produce evidence to justify such a claim in light of the fact that his record falls far short of the program which was outlined in the White Paper?

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– The honourable gentleman makes a number of very wild assumptions. Now I put to one side replying to all of those assumptions. It will please me no end to reply to the honourable gentleman when Question Time finishes. I hope that the honourable gentleman may possibly come into the House so that he will eventually find out where Afghanistan is. I say this to the honourable gentleman: I listen to what he says with a great deal of care, if not always with rapture. I read what the honourable gentleman writes, again with care if not with rapture. I re-read the honourable gentleman’s speech of 27 October 1976 to the Joint Services Staff College, Canberra. What did the honourable gentleman have to say to that distinguished gathering? He said:

The Budget situation for defence will be tight and put strain on the total Budget context and on economic management.

He went on to say:

Future defence expenditure must be subject to the most rigorous cost effectiveness disciplines.

Mr Hayden:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr KILLEN:

– I agree with it. I point out to the honourable gentleman that in a time of massive financial constraint this Government managed to maintain a real growth in defence expenditure. From that fact the honourable gentleman can not escape.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. The House will come to order. The Minister was asked a question and he is entitled to answer it in silence.

Mr KILLEN:

– I do not want to disturb my honourable friends opposite too much. However, I do say this to the honourable gentleman: The fact of life is that there has been, despite economic constraint, a continuation, year by year, in real growth in defence expenditure.

Mr Hayden:

– Fiddlesticks; it is still 2.6 per cent of the gross domestic product.

Mr KILLEN:

– The honourable gentleman’s record in government was an abysmal record in the defence field. Beyond that it was an absolutely disgraceful record in economic management. It is because of the bumbling and bungling and sheer devastation of the Australian economy by the Opposition when in government that we have had to battle so significantly and in such an emphatic way for so long. The honourable gentleman has had his day and the sooner Bob Hawke arrives here the better for us all.

page 106

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr HODGES:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is the Government adopting double standards in allowing exports to Russia while adopting a stance of boycotting the Olympics? Will the Prime Minister state the reasons for the Government’s action in boycotting the Moscow Olympics?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I have made it very plain and the Minister for Trade and Resources has made it very plain that in relation to matters of trade we have a position which is very similar, if not identical, with that of the United Kingdom and the United States. Part of the purpose in my going overseas- part of the purposewas to help to establish a common position with those other major trading countries. That would seem to make sense. But when one comes to the Olympic Games I think that nearly everyone in this House has a very firm belief that a boycott or a movement of the Games from Moscow would bring home to the Soviet Government and the

Soviet people more strongly than anything else the disapproval of the independent nations to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In the last resort, any trade sanction or any embargo on trade can, in fact, be hidden from the Soviet people. But in the light of all the publicity within the Soviet Union in the last two or three years, building up the Moscow Olympics, building up the knowledge that athletes from all countries will come to meet when they visit Moscow for the Games and building it up into a great political event- as they say, political before a sporting event- the absence of significant nations from the -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the right honourable gentleman to resume his seat. The honourable member for Melbourne has continually interjected all day. I warn him to cease interjecting.

Mr Innes:

– If he had the decency to turn around and talk to the Opposition -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I indicate to the honourable member for Melbourne that if he does not cease interjecting I will have to discipline him according to the Standing Orders.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The absence of significant countries from the Moscow Olympics would plainly bring home to the Soviet Government and people more clearly than any other single peaceful act the abhorrence of the world at the Soviet invasion of an inoffensive non-aligned state; that is, the invasion of Afghanistan. I believe that that view is shared very widely indeed. I have stated before that the Soviets themselves have handed out to Communist Party activists within the Soviet Union a million copies of a document which says that the awarding of the games to Moscow is a mark of the correctness of Soviet foreign policy. If the Labor Party wants to lend support to approval for Soviet foreign policy, so be it, but honourable members on this side of the House and the great majority of Australian people most certainly do not. Mr Speaker, I believe that there is great sense and great justice in what we have done in relation to this matter. In support of that statement in part at least I should like to quote from page 36 of yesterday’s Hansard, where it is stated:

I have said from the beginning that an effective boycott or the transfer of the Olympic Games away from Moscow would have embarrassed the Soviet Union deeply and could have been expected to drive home to many of her own people the point that the invasion of Afghanistan was repugnant to and rejected by most countries of the world.

I would have thought that that is a statement that basically every member of this House would support. It is a statement that was made by the Leader of the Opposition. But then he went on in the very next paragraph to say:

There is no sense and no justice in the Government’s continued pressure for a boycott of the Moscow Games by Australian athletes.

In other words, the Leader of the Opposition has said that even though an Olympic boycott would be the most effective way of bringing home the repugnance of the world to the Soviet Union, it should not be done and we should not do anything to achieve it. Indeed, the Labor Party is saying, and the Leader of the Opposition is now saying, that we should do everything to thwart and prevent that message getting home to the people of the Soviet Union.

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is relapsing into his compulsive behaviour of dishonesty. He is misrepresenting what we said.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to make a point of order. He is now arguing the issue. Furthermore, he used terms which I have indicated I will not accept from any honourable member; that is, terms imputing dishonesty to another member. I ask him to withdraw that imputation.

MrHayden-Well -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw.

Mr Hayden:

– If I can get a word in, of course, I withdraw unreservedly- massive mendacity.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have also indicated that when I call for the withdrawal of a term that imputes dishonesty I will not accept a substitution of other words which are meant to mean the same thing. I ask for a withdrawal unreservedly.

Mr Hayden:

– I withdraw unreservedly, Mr Speaker.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– I have asked that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. I just want to reaffirm that I quoted from the Leader of the Opposition’s own remarks, made during his speech yesterday, which are recorded in Hansard.

page 107

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented compulsively by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr HAYDEN:

– Yes, I do. Yesterday, in conformity with what I have consistently said, I stated that an effective boycott of the Olympics could have a helpful, salutary effect on Russia. But it would have to be an effective boycott and that would in turn involve the vast majority of the nations of the world, including the powerful and significant ones of Western Europe, Scandinavia and Japan. In the event of that not happening- clearly it is not going to happenthere will not be an effective boycott. It is unfair and unjust for the Government to persevere with a policy which imposes a total burden of sacrifice and penalty upon young athletes but gives complete immunity, complete exemption to the profit makers in the community, one of whom happens to be a wealthy grazier who is the Prime Minister of this country.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable gentleman is now arguing the issue.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, if I could just make the point -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the right honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

– Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman wishes to make a personal explanation. He may proceed.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– The point I was seeking to make is that an effective boycott has to be worked for and, as the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) indicated yesterday, the Government believes that it will be achieved. Thirty-four or 35 governments have indicated support for the boycott. The point I seek to make is that the Australian Labor Party is doing everything it possibly can to see that an effective boycott is not achieved. That, I believe, exposes its objectives and motives very plainly.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation on the ground that I have been misrepresented.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I refer to a book entitled ‘Hawke’, which is a biography of Bob Hawke by John Hurst. On page133 of that book, Hurst states:

After the election -

That is, the election of 1 972-

Sweeney -

That is, Mr Justice J. B. Sweeney as he now is- was appointed a deputy president of the Commission and Cameron again promised him that he would get the presidency when the position became vacant.

In fact, although Mr J. B. Sweeney, Q.C. had been told that his appointment had been approved, it had not been actually gazetted at the time of Mr Justice Moore’s appointment as President. I repeat what I said in this Parliament, namely, that Sweeney Q.C. had been promised the presidency by both Mr Whitlam and me before the election and that neither Mr Whitlam nor I had at any stage contemplated a repudiation of that promise. That much can be confirmed quite easily by either Mr Whitlam or Mr Justice Sweeney. But Hurst then goes on to report what he alleges is Bob Hawke ‘s version of the incident. He says that Hawke had a conversation with me on the subject which concluded with the threat that he would take up the matter with the Prime Minister. Hurst states that Whitlam agreed that Moore should get the job. That assertion is quite untrue. I am forced to the conclusion that Mr Hawke was correct in describing another of Mr Hurst’s sources as a liar.

Referring to my opposition to a claim for salary increases by Qantas pilots, Hurst writes:

Jones -

That is, Mr Charles Jones from Newcastle-

Cameron and other MPs had seen nothing wrong with the comparative wage justice principle when it was applied to their own incomes.

Let me put it on record once again that in the early part of 1 973 1, together with, so far as I can recall, the honourable member for Newcastlebut I am sure with most members of Cabinet, if not all of them-agreed to reject the recommendation by Mr Justice Kerr for an increase in ministerial salaries. For the sake of the record I can also state- my former Cabinet colleagues who are present and who remember will agree- that both in the Cabinet and in Caucus I opposed the proposed increase in parliamentary salaries to which Hurst refers. That was one of the few occasions, if not the only occasion, when I went into Caucus to vote against a majority decision of Cabinet. On the question of the wage indexation decision of April 1975, Hurst writes:

To the disgust of the ACTU and the white-collar organisations, the Government had argued for indexation only to be granted up to the level of average weekly earnings; above that level increases should be at a flat figure. Clyde Cameron, the Minister for Labour, announced that the Government was totally opposed to the indexation of all wages and that it would intervene to ask that full indexation should not be granted for the June quarter.

That is a lie. Whoever told him that is a liar. If one cares to look at the transcript of the proceedings of the case to which he refers, the one which led to a decision being handed down in April 1 975, one will see submissions by Mr Jolly which substantiate the position that I am now about to outline. We met Mr Hawke and other members of the ACTU on several occasions concerning the Government’s position in relation to a plateau of AWE- average weekly earnings. We met at Kirribilli, in the office of the Prime Minister. I have in my possession, in Mr Menadue ‘s handwriting, the text of the resolution that was agreed to between the Government and the ACTU representatives on this matter. In the memoirs that I will be publishing one day other things that were said by Mr Hawke, by Mr Whitlam and by Mr Cameron will be recorded for all to see. The plain fact of the matter is that in none of the applications that Mr Hawke made for indexation while he was advocate for the ACTU did he ever ask for total indexation, or indexation of the total wage. All the time that he was advocate for the ACTU he asked either for indexation of a plateau at the basic wage as it then was, or for indexation of a plateau equivalent to the minimum wage as it later became. Not once did he ask for an indexation of the total wage.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I interrupt the honourable gentleman -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I must end by saying this -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I think we might take it in stages.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not have much more to say.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will give the honourable member some indulgence, but not much more.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-When the ACTU actually filed its case for wage indexation, which led to the court’s decision in favour of it in 1974, the ACTU’s submission even then did not ask for indexation of the total wage. Instead it asked for indexation of a plateau equal to average award rates, which is less than average weekly earnings. I conclude by saying that that in itself was a repudiation of an agreement entered into between myself and Mr Souter, namely, that the Government ‘s submissions and the ACTU support for those submissions would be based upon the applications which Mr Hawke himself had made over the previous years when he was the advocate for the ACTU.

page 109

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND SERVICES OF THE PARLIAMENT: APPOINTMENT OF CONSULTANT

Mr SPEAKER:

-On 25 September last, when appearing before Estimates Committee A, I referred to work being done on the information systems and services of the Parliament, and in the House on 22 November I again touched on this matter. I now wish to provide more details to the House and to advise of the latest developments.

A parliamentary interdepartmental committee has been studying this matter for some time. By February 1979, the committee had identified a number of activities which appeared to have a potential for automation. The committee recommended that, because of the technical complexity of the subject and the rapidity of technical developments in the area, specialist consultants should be retained to analyse the information needs of senators and members and the Parliament generally and to report on possible applications of automated systems in meeting these needs. As well as helping to improve existing services the consultancy will also provide information that will be essential in planning the new Parliament House. The report will be made available to the Parliament House Construction Authority in its consideration of overall facilities.

Mr President and I accepted the recommendation to engage a specialist consultant. Then followed a considerable amount of internal preparatory work to identify and document information flows prior to calling for tenders. A brief for proposed tenderers was prepared, incorporating the broad terms of reference I have just outlined.

A number of firms expressed interest in the consultancy. Following a rigorous selection process, Mr President and I have now agreed that the tender be awarded to Logica Pty Ltd, a firm which has considerable experience in the information technology area and one which is independent of equipment manufacturers. The study will begin on 3 March, and the consultants will be assisted by three parliamentary officers working full time on the project.

It is proposed that there will be two main stages in the exercise. The first, to conclude in June 1980, will culminate in the formulation of an overall plan covering those information systems where automation is seen as being efficient and cost effective. After this initial plan has been evaluated by the parliamentary departments, Mr President and I will decide whether the project will proceed further. If we agree that it should continue, the second major consultancy activity will be the development of a detailed design for the information systems. The complete study would then conclude early in 1 98 1 .

We trust and expect that the proposed study, which has fundamental implications for the future of the Parliament, will receive the endorsement of all senators and members.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-Mr Speaker, are you able to inform the House whether any consultation with members of the Parliament will take place relevant to the information that they require and the decisions of the consultants? On your statement, at this stage the parliamentary departments rather than members are being consulted about the requirements of members.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman misunderstands what is involved here. It is a case of receiving specialist advice on a consultancy basis. When that specialist advice has been received I will give consideration to the manner in which we should proceed with it.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Speaker, could I address you briefly on this? I quite understand the reasons that have led the Presiding Officers to turn to experts to provide some sort of format or scheme for the way the thing operates but the question is: Where is the starting point? Is the starting point the needs of members, or is the starting point the technical capacity of the experts? Mr Speaker, in the statement that you have just made, copies of which we have just received, I am concerned to see that there has been reference throughout to what the experts, the officers and the Presiding Officers will do, and so on. I hope that it will all work out for the best. Some of us are concerned about whether the starting point ought not to have been to get some kind of input- to use the jargon- from the members themselves. If experts are to be appointed and if the decision is to be made not by the Parliament as a whole but by the Presiding Officers, I hope it will be made quite clear that the inputs from members are decisive and that they will be taken at an early date.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member proceeds to make a contribution which I hear, but I fail to understand why he does not realise that the input of members has been going on in this Parliament for very many years, both by members directly and through the Parliamentary Library Committee of which he is himself a member. It is not as though we are marching out into some uncharted area where no one knows what members want. I assure honourable members that I know very well what they want.

The question is to provide for members what they want, what will make them more efficient members and better representatives of the sovereignty of the people. That is what we want to do.

page 110

QUESTION

HANSARD REPORT OF QUESTION ON NOTICE

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. During the last session I placed on notice a question in regard to the New and Permanent Parliament House. A reply was given to me during the recess. Should not that reply be in the Hansard that we received today? Is that not the procedure?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will inquire into that matter and give the honourable gentleman a considered reply.

page 110

QUESTION

NOTICE PAPER

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-Mr Speaker, may I draw to your attention a minor matter on the Notice Paper under the heading ‘Committees’. Could the Clerk check with the Secretary of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in regard to a further reference which has now been added on the Middle East? It does not appear on the Notice Paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will inquire into that matter and report to the honourable gentleman.

page 110

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE SWITCHBOARD

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-While we are on the question of information systems for the House, could inquiries be made as to why the Parliament House switchboard is not willing to take inquiries when members receive them while they are in the chamber, or at committee meetings? This seems to be a remarkable situation. If constituents, or even a member’s family, ring while he is at a committee meeting or in the House and the attendants cannot find that member, the switchboard is not able to take a message and convey that message to the member. Twice this week people have rung me here and have been told that messages could not be taken for members. Could that matter be looked into? Could some system be provided to ensure that that does not occur in future?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will discuss the matter with the Serjeant-at-Arms and let the honourable member know my response. I should indicate to him that we have had difficulties over the years. The switchboard operators are there to answer the telephone as rapidly as possible and it has not been convenient for members to have messages delivered to the telephonist. That is why we introduced the paging system. I will not go further into that at the moment. I will ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to take it up with the honourable gentleman and learn more details of what he has in mind.

page 110

QUESTION

DEATH OF MR D. J. CURTIN

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-! was obliged to be at the Australian National University when Parliament commenced today. I notice that the death of my predecessor in this House, Mr D. J. Curtin, was announced to the House. I would like to have it noted that I could not be here at the time. I join in the condolences and I would like to place on record, on behalf of my constituents, deep appreciation for the work done in this Parliament by the late Mr Curtin.

page 110

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE VIABILITY OF THE CHRISTMAS ISLAND PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY

Report and Ministerial Statement

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Viability of the Christmas Island Phosphate Industry. I seek leave to make a short statement on the report.

Leave granted.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

-On behalf of the Government I extend to the Commissioner, Mr W. W. Sweetland, our thanks not only for completing a difficult and complex task, but for completing it on time. The Letters Patent were issued to Mr Sweetland on 20 December 1979. They required him to report by 15 February 1980. That he met this deadline is a considerable achievement. Honourable members will recall that the Government’s decision to establish the inquiry was announced on 10 December by my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott), and me. We said then that the inquiry would enable the question whether the Christmas Island phosphate industry would be commercially viable under parity with the Australian minimum wage to be tested publicly, impartially and expertly.

Under its Letters Patent, the Commission was accordingly asked to inquire into the economic viability of the mining and marketing of Christmas Island phosphate rock having regard to present and prospective demand for Christmas Island phosphate rock and to give particular attention to a number of matters, including wage parity, bearing on the question of viability. On this matter, the Commission has reported as follows: The Commission of Inquiry has concluded that, subject to the qualifications noted in this report, the Christmas Island phosphate industry is, and can continue to be, economically viable. The Commission has reached that conclusion on the basis of calculations that assume the payment to island workers of the Australian federal minimum wage.

As the Australian Commissioner on the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission and the British Phosphate Commissioners, Mr M. C. Timbs, noted in his final address to the inquiry on 7 February, movements in the world price of phosphate rock occurred after the inquiry was established. These movements made it possible for wage parity to be paid on the island and for the industry to remain commercially viable. I draw to the attention of honourable members the announcement on 18 February by the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission that it will make a pay rise offer to the Union of Christmas Island Workers that will result in all workers on the Island being paid at least the Australian minimum wage.

Having dealt with the question of economic viability, the Commission of Inquiry felt moved to make a number of recommendations about other subjects. These go to such diverse matters as the composition, internal organisation and operation of the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission, the mining operation on the island, industrial relations and citizenship questions, the administration of the island and its bird populations. These recommendations are variously matters for consideration by the Australian Government alone, and in conjunction with the New Zealand and United Kingdom governments, as well as by the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission itself. The Government will be giving urgent consideration to these matters and decisions made on them will, as appropriate, be announced as soon as possible. I present the following paper:

Commission of Inquiry into the Viability of the Christmas Island Phosphate Industry- Ministerial Statement, 20 February 1980.

Motion ( by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr INNES:
Melbourne

-The Opposition also acknowledges the fact that Mr Sweetland, the Commissioner, has acted promptly and has presented in the report information that is most vital to the continuation and viability of the Christmas Island phosphate industry. He also draws attention to the situation of inhabitants on the island and recommends a number of changes, long overdue, that will do justice to the people who earn their livelihood on the island. He also endeavours to recompense individuals who have brought great wealth to this country by working for slave labour rates on the island.

There are a number of issues that the Opposition would like to raise. I have been to the island. At the time that an industrial dispute was pending, the British Phosphate Commissioners, or the commissioners who run the industry on the island, put up all the cries about the place against bringing the workers on the island up to wage parity. Their arguments were destroyed. The people who run the industry ran away from their responsibilities. For many years the cheap phosphate supplied to farmers in this country was the result of the slave labour rates paid to some workers while other people working alongside them enjoyed the wage levels that people enjoyed in this country. That was an absolute disgrace. As a result of further activity about that situation the Government took steps to ask for this report.

It is interesting to note that the conclusions reached- I do not have the opportunity, in the very brief time that I have available to me at the moment, to go through them- confirm the arguments presented at that time. It is also interesting to note that some of the remarks in the Commissioner’s report are along the lines of evidence presented at that time. They say that there is an established and secure market for the phosphate reserves on Christmas Island and that the demand can be expected to be sustained, provided the price remains competitive, until the reserve stocks of A grade rock are exhausted. At current production levels that will take place in about eight years time. They go on to state that the studies show that on a number of alternative price and cost scenarios the Christmas Island rock can be expected to retain its competitive edge. Notwithstanding what Mr Timbs has said, as reported by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay), the fact is that table 10 on page 63 of the report shows clearly that quality rock can be obtained at Christmas Island at this point in time at something like $ 1 5 less per tonne than the rock that was originally to be the bench market price, the Florida rock in America. The point I make here is that the industrial dispute created chaos on the island, and it cost the Australian taxpayer thousands of dollars to hold police in reserve. The industrial dispute was taken out of all proportion. Workers simply were demanding their right to have” at least minimum wages established on the island. These people were working to produce the rock at bedrock prices for Australia. The dispute was inflamed by the lack of activity of the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott), who has just arrived in the chamber, and the commissioners who ran the industry.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– What do you think would have happened if the coral rock had not gone up in price?

Mr INNES:

-The fact of the matter is that the rock has gone up in price. The Minister asked me what would have happened if it had not. If there had been a curtailment of the extravaganza that was taking place on the island and if this Government had provided for the administrative aspect that is one of the recommendations of the commissioners it could still be a viable proposition because the variation in price at that stage was nowhere near the figure that was quoted to me on the island by the people who represented the company that was going to send the island down the drain. It was like the little boy who cried wolf. When the examination of the whole circumstances of the island took place it was made clear that the people who were running that industry were taking the workers for a ride. The report sustains that. The Minister shakes his head. Let us test it in a clear debate on this question, The fact of the matter is that there are too many aspects of the report for us to handle in five minutes. I have been shown the courtesy of being able to make a few introductory remarks and to make mention of some of the aspects of the report. It would seem to me that this debate should now be adjourned. I understand that this will be agreed to. I seek leave to continue my remarks when this matter is brought back before the House.

Leave granted.

Mr Dawkins:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I crave your indulgence for a moment to enable me to ask the Minister for Administrative Services whether he can give us an undertaking that this matter will be brought back at an early stage for full debate.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, that would be a matter for the Leader of the House to decide. I understand that he has given such an undertaking.

Debate adjourned.

page 112

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests:

Queensland Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1979. Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Bill 1979. Australian Federal Police (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1979.

Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Amendment Bill 1979.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979. Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1979. Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1979.

Income Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1979. Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1979. Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1 979. Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1979.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979.

Loan ( Farmers ‘Debt Adjustment) Repeal Bill 1 979.

States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1979.

Canned Fruits Marketing Bill 1 979.

Canned Fruits Levy Bill 1979.

Canned Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1 979.

Canned Fruit (Sales Promotion) Amendment Bill 1979.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979.

Excise Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979.

Wheat Marketing BUI 1979.

Wheat Levy Bill (No. 1 ) 1979.

Wheat Levy Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Wheat Industry Stabilization (Reimbursement of Borrowing Costs) Amendment Bill 1979.

Wheat Products Export Adjustment Amendment Bill 1979.

Wheat Tax Bill 1979.

Wheat Research Amendment Bill 1979.

Sugar Agreement Bill 1979.

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1979.

States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill 1 979.

Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Bill 1979.

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979. Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979. Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1979. Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1979. Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3 ) 1 979. Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1979. Public Accounts Committee Amendment Bill 1979. Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979. Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1979.

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill 1979.

page 112

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Defence Amendment Bill 1 979. Naval Defence Amendment Bill 1979. Air Force Amendment Bill 1979. Defence Force (Retirement and Death Benefits Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1979. Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979. High Court of Australia Bill 1979. Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. Evidence Amendment Bill 1979. Remuneration and Allowances Bill 1979. Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1979. Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1 979. Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill 1979. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1979-80. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1 979-80. Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1 979. Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1979.

Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1979.

Income Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1 979. Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1979. Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1979. Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1979.

Queensland Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1 979. Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Bill 1979. Australian Federal Police (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1979.

Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Amendment Bill 1979.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979.

Loan (Farmers ‘Debt Adjustment) Repeal Bill 1 979.

States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1979.

Canned Fruits Marketing Bill 1 979.

Canned Fruits Levy Bill 1979.

Canned Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1 979.

Canned Fruit (Sales Promotion) Amendment Bill 1979.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979.

Excise Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979.

Wheat Marketing Bill 1979.

Wheat Levy Bill (No. 1 ) 1979.

Wheat Levy Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Wheat Industry Stabilization (Reimbursement of Borrowing Costs) Amendment Bill 1979.

Wheat Products Export Adjustment Amendment Bill 1979.

Wheat Tax Bill 1979. Wheat Research Amendment Bill 1979. National Companies and Securities Commission Bill 1979.

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979. Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979. Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1979. Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979. Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No.2) 1979. Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1979. Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979. Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1979.

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill 1979.

Sugar Agreement Bill 1 979.

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1979.

States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill 1 979.

Public Accounts Committee Amendment Bill 1 979.

Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Bill 1979.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1979.

Australian National University Amendment Bill 1979.

Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1979.

page 113

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the Committee ‘s report on the Australian Industry Development Corporation, together with extracts of the transcript of evidence and minutes of proceedings. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– From its binh 10 years ago the Australian Industry Development Corporation has represented for many a watershed of basic attitudes to intervention in the capital market, the financial system and the economy. Hence, from the very first, controversy has attracted itself to the Corporation. The deliberations leading to this report could not be isolated from those basic questions. Members of all political parties are necessarily represented on the Expenditure Committee. The Committee has made a number of recommendations, the first of which is that the Corporation itself should continue in existence. The report proposes 19 findings, some of which require administrative action and consideration by the States. The recommendations themselves require Commonwealth legislation. The findings and recommendations are complementary. The Committee asserts that the poor performance of the AIDC cannot be tolerated any further and is unconvinced that these results are attributable to national interests decisions. In that respect I refer the House to the end of paragraph 45 of the report and to paragraph 65 of the report of which I read one sentence:

The Committee considers that AIDC has made use of the non-commercial criteria as an excuse for poor commercial performance, or at least to cloud the issue.

Hence the Committee has decided that commercial criteria should be overriding in its financial operations. That is in paragraph (D) of the findings and paragraph 1 (c) of the recommendations. The Australian Resources Development Bank and the merchant banks assert that the Corporation has a definite place in the market. These views, as will be well known in this House, are in contrast to the position which they adopted in 1970. All governments have continued to support the Corporation since its inception. For that reference, I refer to paragraph 62 of the report. The Committee recommends a mechanism whereby there could, with impunity, be a reduction in the capital paid to the AIDC. The totality of the Committee’s findings reflects its basic concern with program alternatives as well as with efficiency and effectiveness. Compliance and auditing are not the basic hallmarks of the work of the Expenditure Committee. These findings are authenticated by reference to the Committee ‘s work in looking at the gearing ratios, the matter of subordinated loans and the matter of profitability of the Corporation.

The performance since 1970-71 has been very poor, until quite recently. In my view- I stress that this is my own view- had the AIDC been a market institution it would have been liquidated. Table 4, items 13 and 15, show a net loss on financing and foreign exchange charges over the period of $25m. This would, of course, be much greater in 1980 dollars- closer to $35m. It needs to be remembered that income from capital investments has been derived from free and hence subsidised capital. This has often caused the deficit performance to be hidden. To date there has never been a commentary by the Government on the Corporation’s financial performance.

The idea of being comparable with other institutions has inspired a number of the findings and recommendations. I have caused this report to be transmitted to the Committee of Inquiry into the Financial System. The Government may want to consider both reports simultaneously. They can hardly be considered exclusive of one another. I believe that the House ought to be grateful to the members of the Expenditure Committee, particularly of the sub-committee, who considered and deliberated on this report. The members of the sub-committee were the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Edwards), the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry), the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean) and the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). Those honourable members deliberated very long and carefully over this report and the Committee, especially the sub-committee, looks forward to a full debate concerning this matter when the Government ultimately makes its response to the Committee ‘s findings.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-by leave- I would like to make a comment or two upon the remarks of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). Whilst agreeing largely with his comments on the report produced by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, I think that certain matters should be mentioned. At the time of the issue of the report, which was when the Parliament was not sitting, the honourable member, as Chairman of the Committee, rang me and told me that he was about to issue a Press release and in fairness acquainted me with the fact that he intended to make some personal comments. I thought that was fair enough. The difficulty that has arisen because of that is that the Press has taken up the Chairman’s personal comments rather than the report. I feel that its reporting on the Committee’s report has been tainted to a great deal by what the Chairman had to say in his personal capacity.

I have far too much respect for the honourable member for Lilley, as do I think most honourable members on this side of the House, to enter into a quarrel publicly about his personal comments on a report which was issued by him as the Chairman of a committee. I am sure that he meant no mischief, and I say that sincerely. I feel that, unfortunately, the Committee’s report has not been reported by the Press in exactly the same way that the Committee would have wanted it to have been reported. A lot of what the Chairman has had to say in his remarks now is quite correct, but I think it would be fair to say also that the Committee found that the AIDC certainly does have a very positive place in the capital market. That is not to be denied. I do not think we would deny that, as a body, its early performances were poor, but I think it is fair to say, as the report points out and as the Chairman has neglected to say, that we were very impressed with the recent performances of the AIDC, particularly with the bank of expertise which has been built up within the organisation under its new Chairman and which we feel is a great vehicle for good for Australian industry. It certainly has the capacity for putting together money to finance Australian industry, and I think that was the main thrust of the Committee’s report. We were not only critical of its past performances, but also congratulatory of its later performances, and I think that should be pointed out. I have here Press reports from around Australia, which stress only the Chairman’s personal remarks and not the contents of the report in toto. The headline in the Age states: ‘AIDC all the better for a beating bee ‘; in the Courier Mail of Saturday: Report slams AIDC record ‘; in the Sun: ‘A blast for the AIDC; in the Weekend Australian: AIDC told to get on commercial footing’; in the West Australian; ‘MPs study finds AIDC wanting’; in the Mercury. ‘AIDC slated for poor results’; in the Canberra Times: ‘Committee slams poor performance of AIDC, and so on. I do not think that is the sort of coverage the Committee would have expected if its report had been read by the Press in an unbiased fashion and if the Press had confined itself to reporting what the Committee had to say and not what the Chairman had to say in his personal capacity.

I should like to make some comments about the Chairman’s reference to the loss of $2 5m. I think it is fair to say that, far from showing a net loss of $25m over the period mentioned, in fact the AIDC has built up accumulated profits, or reserves, of $12. 5m. Those reserves represent the net profit after all charges, including foreign exchange losses. It might be fair enough to say that the AIDC has not made as much profit as it should have, and I doubt whether any member of the Committee would quibble with that. It is quite another matter to conclude that if the AIDC had been a market institution, presumably meaning a private business, it would have been liquidated. Companies which have built up substantial reserves over and above their original capital are not liquidated. In fact, recent financial history in Australia provides well known examples of prominent finance companies and merchant banks which have actually lost a substantial part of their capital but have not been liquidated. Their parent companies have come to their aid and put in additional funds. That has certainly not been necessary in the case of the AIDC, which has built upon its capital. It is just as well that the honourable member for Lilley is not the official liquidator or executioner in Australia. If he were, the AIDC might well vanish into history.

I am sure that the other members of the Committee who issued this report would agree that the comments of the honourable member for Lilley were not in total accord with the findings of the Committee. I should like all members of the House to read this report, which deals with a most important facility that is available to the business world of Australia, backed up and supported by this Government. I hope that members on both sides of the House will realise that the AIDC provides a great vehicle for what we would all like to see, that is, Australian industry prospering. I hope also that the personal comments of the honourable member for Lilley will not override or subjugate the report of the Committee.

page 115

TAXATION

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 Gellibrand (Mr Willis) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need for tax cuts to relieve the increased burden of taxation that has occurred under the Fraser Government.

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

More than the number of members required by

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-Under the Fraser Government, taxes have increased to the highest level in our history.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the business of the day be called on.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The question is that the business of the day be called on.

Mr Scholes:

– That is not the question. The question is that freedom of debate be restricted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

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

AYES: 73

NOES: 33

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 116

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I move:

I want to make it very clear that the Opposition is always anxious to co-operate with the Government, but on this occasion we find that because the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) has raised a domestic issue of national importance, the Government has decided that it will gag him and not allow that matter to be debated. On inquiry, we were informed that it is the Government’s policy from now on that no matters of public importance will be allowed to be debated on any Thursday. This is a most serious matter of concern to all members of the Parliament. Discussion of matters of public importance is the right of Government back benchers as well as of members of the Opposition. But to say that on this occasion a matter of such importance as the taxation burden cannot be discussed because ostensibly we have to discuss Afghanistan again does not stand up to scrutiny. The issue is that no matters of public importance will be allowed for discussion on any Thursday because the Government has decreed in advance that there are no matters of public importance. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, under Standing Orders matters of public importance are determined by the Speaker. He determines what matter he ought to put before the House and the House can then debate it.

We have already discussed today several matters of importance as set out on the business paper but surely they are no more important than the matter of the taxation burden that the honourable member for Gellibrand wished to raise. People have been asked to pay millions of dollars on the basis that it is a conservation issue when in fact it is a taxation gathering or revenue issue. Today, we have already discussed the report on the Christmas Island phosphate industry and the report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure relating to the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Those matters are important but surely they are no more important than the question of what will affect every taxpayer in Australia. Why cannot the Government answer for its actions on this matter? We want to make this point very clear: Parliament belongs to all of us. It is not Malcolm Fraser ‘s Parliament. The procedure and business of this Parliament are not determined by the Prime Minister or by Cabinet; they are determined by the Standing Orders and by members who are elected to Parliament, having a right to raise matters which are of importance.

Looking at the issue we are now discussing and which we have been discussing for 24 hours- the question of Afghanistan and the Olympic Games boycott- one would have thought that at least the Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock) would have taken part in the debate. We thought yesterday, when all the Labor Party front bench was involved in the debate, that at least the most senior Minister responsible for this matter, next to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), would have participated in the debate. The Foreign Minister was here all the time but so far he has not made a contribution. We now learn that he has gone overseas, so where is this matter of such grave importance that we have to discuss again today on the basis that every other matter must be put aside?

I make the point again: We are not putting every other matter aside. We have already dealt with the matters by way of ministerial leave. We have also dealt with a report from the Standing Committee on Expenditure. We have been asked by the Government to agree to assist it in passing three Bills through the Parliament- The Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill, the Amendments Incorporation Amendment Bill and the Statutory Rules Publications Amendment Bill. We are prepared to do so. I give an undertaking now that if the Government allows the honourable member for Gellibrand to pursue his motion, I will guarantee the passage of the three matters that the Government deems so important and which it has to get through this House this evening. I will get them through for the Government in the minimum of time.

Mr Baillieu:

– No deals.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The honourable member for La Trobe says: ‘No deals’. The deal has been done in his Cabinet. The deal has been decided by his Prime Minister. Debate in this Parliament is to be stifled because the Government does not want to discuss matters that the Opposition wishes to raise. We say to the Government: We can agree on time allocations but do not take away the rights of all of us- the ability to raise a matter of public importancebecause once the Government does that it is trifling with the importance of the whole of this Parliament. As all honourable members will know, in the last session there were many matters that we could not raise because the Prime Minister was ill. He was ill for about six weeks and we did not see him during that time. If a matter of public importance is to be allowed for discussion only on the basis that it must concern Afghanistan, because the Prime Minister said so, I think that is a very sick approach to the problems of the nation.

Here we have it: Apparently the Government does not know whether we ought to boycott the Olympic Games or not. Public opinion has already decided that issue. If we are to debate whether the Olympic Games ought to be held in Montreal, I suggest that the recent elections in Canada have already decided that issue. The new Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, has said already that his country will not boycott the Games. I would be mystified if we now passed a motion in this Parliament to the effect that the alternative Games be held in Montreal. Can honourable members imagine that. We will now have the Games in Montreal! So much for the nonsense we have heard on this most important matter.

We agree with some of the things that have been said about Afghanistan and there are other matters we would like to raise concerning it, but there is plenty of time to debate them. When the Government says, on the second day of the sitting- and bear in mind that we did not move matters of public importance for discussion on the first day- that we cannot discuss a matter of public importance on this day or on any Thursday during the session, it cannot expect to get any co-operation from the Opposition. If that is the situation, if the Government does not want to share the time in accordance with the Standing Orders- in other words, if it does not want fairness of debate- what does it think is going to happen to the time allocation? The Opposition will try to pursue its rights on every matter. Surely wisdom would indicate to the Government that if the Opposition decides to use the Standing Orders of this House, the Government will make very little progress indeed from the point of view of getting its business through the

House. Why should I co-operate on the three Bills that the Government wants to put through this House tonight if it gags my colleague who wants only half an hour in which to speak? Why should we co-operate? Discussion of matters of public importance takes as little as half an hour a day and we have already spent at least 45 minutes on two reports which were important, but which are not as important as the matter of public importance.

Why is it that the Government is running away from the problem it faces with public opinion? It has been reefing taxes off the motorists ostensibly on the basis of conservation but obviously for the purposes of revenue. The honourable member for Gellibrand wants to show the Government up for the falsity of its case and to indicate clearly why the Government is not giving back the taxes to the people if it is not a revenue measure. But why will the Government not allow that debate? Why are we going through this nonsense with the Government trying to mislead and hoodwink the public of Australia that there is no matter as important as Afghanistan. The issue at the moment is that there are many other important matters, particularly on the domestic economic scene- unemployment; high taxation; the failure of government policy; the Government’s duplicity in foreign affairs; and its inability to act in other areas such as Kampuchea where people are about to die and where the Government is recognising a genocidal regime under Pol Pot.

What about those matters being discussed? No, it is not to be. The great prima donna, the Prime Minister, has declared that no matters of public importance are to be discussed on Thursday, for example- nor on any other day if he decides that he wants to discuss something else. To what extent does he discuss matters anyway? He comes in here with a prepared statement and then leaves. Have honourable members heard the Prime Minister participate in a debate recently? No! He has not participated in a debate for the last 12 months. It is nonsensical that people outside, who elect us to Parliament on the basis that we will be able to raise matters, should have to put up with this sort of nonsense. Because the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) is only a lackey carrying out instructions anyway, he is prepared to fall in line with what he has been told.

I cannot for the life of me expect anybody outside of this Parliament to agree to the Prime Minister’s being able to determine in advance, without knowing them, what the matters of public importance are, or to determine in advance that they will not be raised on any Thursday. No other Parliament in Australia would carry on its business on that basis. It is for that reason that we move for the suspension of Standing Orders and the condemnation of the Government not only on this particular issue, however vital, but also on the issue that matters of public importance generally will not be permitted to be debated.

I assure Government supporters that if they think that they have saved any time or gained any political advantage from this course of action they are grossly mistaken. The Opposition will take every opportunity to use the Standing Orders and exercise to the full its power to guarantee that every Opposition member who wishes to speak will have a chance to do so. If Government supporters are hoping to downgrade the Parliament- Mr Deputy Speaker, we look to you to protect our privileges- on the basis that we are to perform only in accordance with the Fraser rules, in many cases that will mean no debate at all. It certainly means that there will be no integrity in the situation. I cannot think of any other Government that has decided in advance what shall be considered matters of public interest, and has decided in advance that whether they are or not they may not be raised on certain days.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The honourable gentleman’s time has expired. The motion should be in writing and requires a seconder. While that is being attended to I again draw to the attention of the House that it is grossly unfair that a speaker should be interrupted repeatedly. He has a basic entitlement to be heard in silence. Notwithstanding my request that honourable members on my right subdue their conversation, the noise level persisted. That does little for Parliament and demeans them as individuals. Is there a seconder to the motion?

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I second the motion that the Standing Orders be suspended. There are many reasons why such suspension should take place. I wish to highlight the fact that it affects not only the rights of members of the Opposition but also those of Government supporters. The rights of all private members are being trampled on by the Government’s use of the Standing Orders, and by the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) having a matter of public importance set aside in the way that he did. I wish to highlight first the importance of this matter of public importance. Do members of the Liberal and National Country Parties believe that, after three months’ recess, only one issue is before this country? There are hundreds of issues which members of the Opposition anyway want to bring before the Parliament. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has already highlighted some of them and I will come back to them in a moment. The subject proposed by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), which is set out on the daily program, is one of the utmost importance, one concerning which the people of this country are keen to have an answer. They want the honourable member to be able to bring the Treasurer (Mr Howard) into this House to give an indication of what this $400m to $600m extra revenue, which has been collected by use of the Fraser federal petrol tax, is to be used for. The honourable member has prepared a speech which thousands and thousands of Australians want presented to this Parliament, as indeed it should be.

Everybody else in the country is speculating about what is going to happen with all this money that the Government has been collecting at the petrol bowsers. We have had the Australian Industry Development Association speculating. We have had every employer group speculating also, yet this Government, in its jackboot style, prevents the members of the Opposition from bringing this legitimate subject before the Parliament. Yesterday the Opposition did the right thing. It did not put a matter of public importance on the daily program. It had ascertained that the Prime Minister would be making a statement on a most important subject, namely, the invasion of Afghanistan. That subject was debated all day. We are also prepared to debate it for many hours today and again tomorrow. As has been said, 22 members from this side of the House alone, have put their names on the list of speakers. But there is plenty of time for that subject to be discussed along with other subjects that are of keen interest to the Parliament. It is not only a matter of the importance of the subject that is on the daily program, it is the creation of a bad precedent that is so much on our minds. I have not been able to learn of a previous occasion when a government has used its numbers in this way- to remove from the program a matter of public importance. Does any honourable member suggest that other debates which have taken place in this chamber in the past, for instance on the Budget, were not important; that therefore matters of public importance should not have been brought forward simultaneously by the Opposition?

Does anybody suggest that the great Vietnam debate was not of equal importance to this House? During the Vietnam debates matters of public importance were on the notice paper.

Does anyone suggest that the debate on the Suez crisis was of such great importance that a matter of public importance- another issue in the community- could not also be brought before the Parliament? That was not considered necessary either during the Vietnam debate or during the recent Budget debate. There are many examples of the government of the day allowing matters of public importance to come before the chamber while most important issues were being discussed.

I can anticipate what the Leader of the House will say by way of a weak and feeble excuse in order to gag this debate. He will say that Afghanistan is an important subject. We have agreed that it is. For that reason we did not yesterday present a matter of public importance, but we are also agreed that it is our right and proper duty -

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

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

– A very simple proposition is put forward on behalf of the Government as to why it wishes the House to proceed to the business of the day. The motion before the House concerning the invasion of Afghanistan must be recognised, as indeed it is, as being one of the utmost importance to the Australian public. I cannot think of any other matter of public importance which could transcend it. We had an extensive debate on it yesterday and the speakers’ list for the Opposition includes 22 honourable members, among them the honourable members for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), Robertson (Mr Cohen), Prospect (Dr Klugman), Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), Shortland (Mr Morris) and others on the front bench. Also, some 26 private members on the Government side put their names on the list of speakers and wish equally a full opportunity to participate. They recognise the supreme importance of the issue.

Before the House resumed yesterday I informed the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Hurford) that the Government intended to debate the matter of the invasion by the Soviet Union of Afghanistan at least yesterday and today. If enough members on both sides of the House wish to debate the matter further, I will facilitate debate on Thursday. That is what the Government proposes to do, for the simple reason that it cannot think of any other matter before the Australian public at the moment that is of greater importance than this one.

As to the future handling of matters of public importance, I have informed the honourable member for Adelaide that the Government considers that in normal circumstances Tuesdays and Wednesdays would be appropriate days for the handling of matters of public importance put forward by either members of the Opposition or supporters of the Government. Thursdays are traditionally set aside as days when private members can bring forward grievances and alternate Thursdays are General Business days when generally notices of motion given by private members are debated. In the minds of those private members they are matters of urgent public importance either to their constituents or to the Australian public as a whole.

Therefore, to bring some rationality and some efficiency into the handling of both Government and parliamentary business before this House, it is my view that as a general approach to the handling of matters of public importance they ought to be considered on Tuesday and Wednesday of each week. As I have said, having regard to the number of speakers on both sides of this House who obviously agree with me that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is a matter of supreme importance, I believe that it is proper that we facilitate debate on that matter as quickly as possibly and as a matter of urgency. That is what I propose to do. Therefore, I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 73

NOES: 34

Majority…… 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

That the motion (Mr Lionel Bowen’s) be agreed to:

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

AYES: 34

NOES: 74

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 120

QUESTION

AFGHANISTAN-INVASION BY SOVIET UNION

Debate resumed from19 February, on motion by Mr Viner:

That this House-

) condemns the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union as a gross violation of the United Nations Charter and of Afghanistan’s non-aligned status; as involving acts of aggression and tyranny; as having a critically destabilizing effect on the region; and as potentially the gravest threat to international peace and security since1945;

notes that a significant majority of world opinion, including Islamic opinion, has viewed the invasion with grave concern- as expressed in resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on 14 January 1980 and at the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers on 29 January1 980;

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

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

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-I move:

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

notes that a significant majority of world opinion, including Islamic opinion, has viewed the invasion with grave concern- as expressed in resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on14 January 1980 and at the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers on 29 January 1980;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The effects of this amendment are twofold. Firstly, the amendment includes all the Government’s motion except the final13 words of the first clause. Of course the Opposition condemns the invasion of Afghanistan. It certainly joins with the Government in doing that. But the Government’s motion describes the situation in this way:

  1. . and as potentially the gravest threat to international peace and security since 1943.

Those are the last13 words of the first clause which we have removed and they are clearly stupid. That cannot be substantiated.

MrBaillieu-Why?

Mr HURFORD:

– Why, the honourable member asks. What about the Cuban missile crisis for one example? What about Vietnam? What about the Suez crisis? What about the Middle East wars? What about the incursion or invasion into Czechoslovakia or Hungary by the Soviet Union? Were these not all great times when there was insecurity in the world? We do not want to put our names to stupid claims which cannot be fully substantiated. Secondly, our amendment adds a number of clauses to the resolution. For those government members who take an interest in this matter, I refer to clauses (6), (7), (8) and (9) which appear on the second page of our amendment. I will read them. Clause (6) reads: views with extreme concern the possibility that strategic arms limitation may be abandoned and an uncontrolled arms race resumed;

Are honourable members opposite going to oppose that? I suppose that with their hawkish tendencies at the moment they do not want the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty to succeed. Are they going to oppose that clause? I would like to hear them get up in this place and say so because we will take the information to the rest of the country with great pleasure. Clause (7) reads: urges the Government to recognise the serious problems which exist in Australia’s own region and which have a direct effect upon Australia and its future;

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his own statement mentioned the effect on Vietnam, on Kampuchea and on that part of the world in general. Of course it is right and proper that in a motion before the House arising out of that prime ministerial statement we should put in a clause such as that. Clause (8) reads: calls on the Government to take a diplomatic initiative directed at convening an international conference which would have the objective of demilitarising Kampuchea and allowing the people of that country to determine their own future, . . .

Is it not right and proper that in precedence we should be concerned with our own region where we have some influence? Of course it is. Just as the nine European Economic Community foreign ministers have taken a sensible initiative, from all Press reports, relating to Afghanistan in that part of the world which they are closer to, so we should be taking an initiative in our part of the world as contained in that clause. I trust that the Government will support that clause as well, or will give us some good reasons why we should not be taking such an initiative. Clause (9) reads: condemns the double standard applied by the Prime Minister in sanctions against the Soviet Union by harrassing Australian athletes while permitting continued trade.

Let us be realistic. As I will show in a moment, there are many other very effective means that this Government could have taken to show its absolute disgust at the invasion of Afghanistan without picking on one section of the community, unless, of course, that could be an effective means of showing that disgust. While the present attitudes in the rest of the world remain, we will have the same sort of result that has been achieved in the Canadian elections. Pierre Trudeau, very wisely, has said that he will support an Olympic boycott if it is to be effective, if major powers will support such a boycott, if some of the Third World countries will join in that boycott. The Canadian people in their wisdom have got behind Pierre Trudeau on this issue and on others and have given him a resounding majority. It is therefore with a great deal of pride that I have moved this amendment which is full of good sense. I trust that the Government will give it very careful consideration and will for once show that we can have a bipartisan approach in this Parliament on such an issue.

In the time that I have remaining I wish to make eight points if possible. Firstly, I wish to drive home that I share the disgust expressed by my Labor colleagues and by my political opponents at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The fact that others have equally contravened in the past- we can mention Vietnam, Chile, the Baltic States and Czechoslovakia- is no excuse for contravention to be allowed to happen again. Two wrongs have never made a right, leave alone 22 wrongs. The big question is: How do we most effectively deter the expansionist policies of such nations as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that carry out such invasions as that of Afghanistan? Secondly, we in the Labor Party in these difficult circumstances would have liked to forge a bipartisan approach to this problem of expansionism. We do accept most of the Government’s motion.

Mr Nixon:

– You never try.

Mr HURFORD:

-The Minister says that we never try. I am showing him now that we have accepted all but 13 words of the Government’s resolution. The Government did not come to us and consult us in advance. If there had been any goodwill on the part of the people in control of the Government, why did they not come to the Opposition and suggest a resolution which could have received the unanimous support of this House? They did not try because they are not interested in it, because this is an election year and they were hoping that an election issue would arise out of this grave matter of the invasion of Afghanistan.

Having said that, I must say that I have no serious quarrels with what the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) said originally on this issue. I have no quarrel with the fact that he visited South East Asia. I support the sort of activity, the sort of communication which he undertook. But, of course, he and his Department have been under extreme pressure to be more bellicose and more hysterical than they wanted to be. It is not without significance that he was here yesterday with a great opportunity to enter into this debate, one of the few foreign affairs debates that we have in this chamber and that he is not here now. He not only said nothing yesterday but he has moved away today so that he could not enter into this debate. This is an absolute scandal that needs to be brought to the attention of not only this Parliament but also of the people of this country. It highlights the fact that on that side of the House there are some sensible people- perhaps he can be included among them- who would have forged a bipartisan approach on this particular issue rather than go in for the bellicosity that we have heard on it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the next point which I want to bring to the attention of the House relates to the sensible advice from informed sources such as the Department of Foreign Affairs that I believe was given to the Prime Minister and to other Ministers. The fact that that advice has failed and that this bellicosity, this hawkishness, has resulted, needs also to be mentioned further. The Prime Minister, from the position that he has taken, has failed the nation by playing politics and thus losing the opportunity for a bipartisan approach. He has always been an opponent of detente. It is little wonder that some people refer to him as a warmonger. He practices reckless brinkmanship in so much that he does. I hope that wiser counsels will prevail. I hope that the initiatives which have been taken by the European Economic Community foreign ministers will mean that there will be a change of attitude on the part of this Government so that we will not be made to a greater extent the laughing stock of the world on this issue. Whereas we could have been united in fighting the imperialism we are divided on the methods of doing so. Charges are made, advisedly, of hypocrisy in an election year. What a tragedy, what stupidity this is. Well might the Australian people ponder whose finger they want on the trigger in difficult times.

The Opposition’s amendment signifies our concern for the abandonment of the Strategic

Arms Limitation Treaty, SALT, and expresses our hope that dialogue will recommence. I repeat that we are most heartened by the news of the initiative taken in the European Economic Community.

The fourth point is that the methods to be used to show our disgust of course depend upon an analysis of what the Russians are up to. This has been well covered by others in this debate. There have been two quite different responses to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. One view is that the invasion is part of a grand plan to capture access to the Indian Ocean by moving on to occupy Baluchistan, Pakistan and /or Iran as well as to take control of the Persian Gulf. The other is the view that the Soviets had begun to lose control of Afghanistan which has already been established during the Teraki/Amin period, if not before, and used a military solution. Neither action is defensible. I and my colleagues on this side of the House do not defend that invasion in any way.

If the first scenario is accepted, the only possible response must be vigorously to retaliate against the Soviets. This would require at least a total trade ban by the Western world. We gather that the Western world, Australia included, is not undertaking a complete trade ban, so we must accept that the second view is taken. The suggestion is that we should express our profound disfavour of the Russian action and take effective steps which will raise the cost of that action in Russian eyes without unduly damaging prospects for peaceful interchange and mutual understanding. Eminent people such as George F. Kennan, one of the United States’ greatest students of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Sir John Hackett, former Chief of the General Staff in the United Kingdom, currently visiting Australia, have given strong advice that the latter is the more likely explanation, that we should not paint the Soviets into a corner but should give them some room to maneouvre. Moves which have a psychological effect on them can and do work. They do not necessarily want to be loved, but they do want to be understood. We should bear this in mind when choosing our methods to deter the sort of aggression which has occurred in Afghanistan and which we all view with disgust.

Just before coming to my fifth point I will mention again the European Economic Community initiative. In itself that does not paint the Soviet Union into a corner; it gives it room to move. That is another reason why it should be supported by Australia.

In these circumstances my fifth point is to list the sorts of things that we should not do. In a moment I will come back to what we should do to show our disgust. But we should not do anything that is going to hurt us more than it will hurt them if, in that second view, we believe in the purpose of that Afghanistan invasion. Trade in wheat, wool, meat and metals falls into that category and we should not, in a time of hysteria, hastily announce that we are going to terminate one part of our trade and then eat humble pie later by restoring that trade. I refer, of course, to the absurd rutile episode. We should not create a market place for hysteria generally. Fancy returning to the Cold War period of the Dulles era. What did that achieve? What a lesson of contrast it was for us when Prime Minister Ohira of Japan was with us. He did not regress to the them and us’ folly. He did not go in for beligerent rhetoric as did our Prime Minister. He did not try to outstrip everyone else in anti-Soviet sloganeering. He behaved with dignity, expressing his disgust and getting on with the job of doing something effective about it. I do not believe that the reason for the contrast was that he had had his election. He had already had his election and, of course, we still have to have ours this year. He has some balance and dignity and it is a pity that that same balance and dignity was not shown in this country.

Of course, it is much more sensible for us to test out the Europeans first, but I do not believe that a visit to Europe was necessary for that purpose. Indeed, the sort of message that we got back from the Prime Minister’s visit to Europe is very different from the message that we are now receiving over the wires from Europe in relation to the European Economic Community’s Foreign Ministers’ attitudes on this point. I will list some of the things that we could do in order to be effective. We could increase the resources of Radio Australia, for a start. We could do more, earlier than this, to highlight the lack of human rights in the Soviet Union. Thank goodness that at last we are coming to do that. We could trim down the number of diplomats that the Soviets have in this country. That would have been a sign, an effective way of showing our disgust at what had happened. There are many other things that could have been done in order to show that disgust, rather than going in for the sort of hawkishness that has occurred. I hope that the House will support the amendment I have moved.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Kerin:

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

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– The amendment proposed by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) asks the House to accept and give judgment that the present crisis in Afghanistan is not potentially the gravest threat to international peace and security since 1945. 1 think my friend would agree that in that amendment is the difference that separates the attitude of the Government and that of the Opposition. It is the Government’s appraisrnent and assessment that it is potentially the gravest threat since 1945. I would seek to establish just that argument. Having listened to the honourable member for Adelaide, may I say that it was refreshing that he made a far more moderate speech on this issue than did his leader. I say without any bitterness at all, that I was sad indeed yesterday afternoon to hear the speech that came from the lips of my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). I have and always have had- and I trust will continue to maintain- both an affection and admiration for the honourable gentleman. But I was saddened to hear his speech because it was a speech which did no credit to the high office of the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition in this Parliament. He did no credit to intellectual honesty in turning to some of the arguments that he advanced upon the House. I want to examine some of the arguments, not in heat or indeed in anger, but in sorrow. The first argument which the honourable gentleman pressed upon us yesterday afternoon was this:

In both countries-

That is, the United States of America and Australia- there are the most compelling political reasons for diverting public attention from the great domestic issues which would otherwise be absorbing the electors.

When my honourable friend uttered those words he debauched the debate. Is he saying of the man who holds the office of the President of the United States of America that he is prepared to use the crisis in Afghanistan for vulgar political purposes? That is a pretty savage charge to make against the President of the United States of America.

Mr Holding:

– He is a politican like everybody else.

Mr KILLEN:

– That is another vulgar assessment. No doubt the honourable gentleman’s bench mark is his own purview of the world. Some 104 nations voted in the United Nations in clear condemnation of the Soviet invasion of

Afghanistan. Let us not mince words. Were all those votes registered springing from some vulgar political opportunity? It is an extraordinary argument to advance but that is precisely the argument that was put to the House yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. I want to say to my friend that I thought it was a disgraceful assertion to make and he will live to rue the day that he made it. The concern in the face of the President of the United States, obvious to any person with any feeling for anguish or for fear itself, was shown quite clearly when he declared that the United States would regard its interests as being vital. Could any person recalling the President’s speech on the State of the Union say: Oh no, he is doing that for vulgar political purposes ‘. I am very sorry that my friend made that assertion. The second assertion that the honourable gentleman made was this:

What the invasion does represent is a dangerous manifestation of the characteristic, exaggerated Soviet sense of insecurity and an arrogant assertion of military might.

Am I to understand that members of this national Parliament have so lost their capacity for indignation that there can be- to use my friend’s own language- ‘an arrogant assertion of military might’ and we are not prepared to say that is an ill business? The honourable gentleman said in very clear language: Here is a nonaligned country invaded by the Soviet Union. I would have thought that any gathering of men and women with a feeling for the democratic ideal would have said that this is a matter to be condemned, without any qualifications whatsoever. But today the honourable member for Adelaide has sought to diminish the significance of this matter to the world.

That brings me to the third assertion made by the Leader of the Opposition, which enables me to examine the merit of the argument which resides in the amendment now before us; in other words, to say that it is not potentially the gravest threat to the world since 1945 or, on the other hand, to take a contrary point of view. Yesterday afternoon the Leader of the Opposition said this:

The assertion that the Soviet Union may have been moving to control the West’s oil cannot be sustained. The Soviet Union’s military capability to interdict oil destined for the West has not been significantly enhanced by invading Afghanistan.

I have a map here. I hope that all my honourable friends look at it. It shows the relationship of all of the oil supply that transits the Strait of Hormuz. The Soviet, by controlling Afghanistan, would be in a far readier position to mount an invasion, in turn, of Iran, to control the Strait of Hormuz, and in turn to control the economies of every nation in the world. That is no exaggeration whatsoever. Let me remind my friends in this House -

Mr Kerin:

– That are closer to the north of Iran.

Mr KILLEN:

– I say to my honourable friend who interjects that the red area shows all of the major oilfields. The Strait of Hormuz can be very easily shut. The Soviets today have a mining capability the likes of which the world has never known. There are 400,000 mines held in the inventory of the Soviet. I am not talking about land mines; I am talking about mines that can be laid in the sea. Many of them are so sophisticated that they cannot be swept; their location must be known. I say to my friend: There are the oilfields and through that narrow Strait of Hormuz transits some 33 per cent of the oil used in the United States; some 50 per cent of Canada’s oil supply; some 72 per cent of Japan’s, but it is getting closer towards 80 per cent; some 68 per cent of the United Kingdom’s oil supply; 40 per cent of West Germany’s and 77 per cent of France’s. I said recently that I take no apocalyptic view of life or of the world, but this is potentially the gravest crisis the world has ever faced.

Mr Holding:
Mr KILLEN:

– I am sorry that my friend does not agree with me. Am I to understand from that assertion that if the Strait of Hormuz were to be shut, either at the direction or beckoning of the Soviet Union or by an irrational regime in Iran, Moslem fanatics or Moscow orientated Government, or come what may, anything that may emerge out of the geopolitical disturbance, it would not represent a threat to the world? The only power in this world that has the power to sustain any measure of balance in the whole of the Eurasian area that is immediately under consideration is the United States of America. And there would be the Soviet Union, ready and waiting. I see this as a very sombre consideration.

We are told that detente is still with us. Detente, as I understand it from the French people, means simply a relaxation. Many people genuinely believed that the state of detente was real and that man could edge slowly but certainly towards the prospect of genuine survival. Does detente exist after this? Can there be a genuine relaxation when we see the oil supply of the greater part of the world put immediately in danger? There is another French word that may well come into the lexicon, the word raideur. It means a stiffening; an intransigence; a hardening. Is this not a case of detente being replaced by raideur? Let me read to the House the words of Mr Brezhnev in the report of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to the 25 th Congress of the Soviet Union held in 1976. 1 ask honourable members to listen to this language. He said:

Speaking of our relations with the Asian states in general, we must mention our good neighbour, Afghanistan, with which we have recently extended the almost halfcenturyold treaty of neutrality and non-aggression.

I repeat: treaty of neutrality and non-aggression.

Has the capacity of men and women to become indignant disappeared? Is this a mere exercise in cynicism? I would hope that the House would take a very hard look at the Soviet’s action and at the Soviet’s capabilities. It was in June 1976 that in this country, indeed, in this building, I released the figures of the Soviet build-up. The result throughout the country was almost a cascade, a chorus, of scorn and contempt. One nuclear submarine was being launched every six weeks. Today the Soviet has 350 submarines. One hundred and fifty of .them are nuclearpowered. At the beginning _of World War II Doenitz had 50 at his disposal. Approximately every year 1,500 to 1,600 aircraft are brought into the inventory of the Soviet Union. Most of them are deadly in their offensive capability. The view that was offered centuries ago by a great German philosopher, poet and writer by the name of Goethe was this: ‘The highest in life can never be written. It must always be acted ‘. When he said ‘acted’ he did not mean pretended, but done, accomplished, carried out, performed.

The Soviet Union could, by one act, bring back detente, if that was ever real, which many of us may doubt. It could do so by withdrawing its troops-85,000 to 90,000 of them-from Afghanistan and allowing that little non-aligned country to stand on its own feet. Not only would that be possible; it would bring back to a beleaguered and in many cases a frightened world a sense of hope and a belief that there would be some prospect for the world. These are grave and very anxious times indeed. I am sorry that my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, introduced the view that this was a very vulgar, political assessment. I think that he did, as I say, debauch the debate.

In conclusion I want to refer to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition on a boycott. He said that it must be effective. Again I ask the House: Is indignation merely to be shown when it is effective? What is the determination of effective? If one man believes something is wrong let him say so. Must he wait around either on his knees or in hope that people will join with him before he will express his indignation? Is the mind of man now so addled that it is incapable of expressing abhorrence or revulsion at cruelty, at unfairness, at the destruction of the rights of men and women, because it is not effective for just one man or one woman to speak? This Government has taken the view that we believe it is wrong and we have said so. We will continue to say so.

I will await an opportunity, I trust, to reply to some of the views which the honourable gentleman offered on defence. On this occasion I do not want to seek to bring the debate away from the grave issues which we now have before us. A very famous injunction, that we are all members, one of another, applies also to nations. Nations today are very much members, one of another. The sad feature of life is that high estate is not recognised by us. We continue to take a very mean and a very impoverished view of what happens around the world. If men and women of goodwill cannot identify what has taken place in Afghanistan in recent times, as a grave threat to the world and to the prospect of peace, then indeed darkness has swept over us all.

Mr KERIN:
Werriwa

-This debate is as much about the inappropriate shooting from the lip response of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan as it is about the invasion itself. The Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) has based his speech on some strategic concepts relating to this part of the world. Let me take up some of them. Russia did not have to take Afghanistan to mine the Straits of Hormuz. It could do that at any time from ships in the Indian Ocean if it wanted to. Russia does not have to take Afghanistan to invade Iran. It can go directly through Iran to the Persian Gulf. After all, much of the supplies by the United States of America to Russia in World War II went through Iran. Northern Afghanistan is relatively trackless compared with northern Iran. It is the geography of the region that has dictated the United States having air bases in Turkey.

There are many issues that the Prime Minister’s response has initiated, each requiring calm, detailed debate, but the debate cannot be calm and consensual due to the Prime Minister’s blustering and the cant, humbug, hypocrisy and inconsistency of the Government on the issue. In a nutshell, if the threat was of the magnitude painted, his response, including the Olympic Games boycott, would have stuck. But it was he and his Government which wrecked his case. The rutile decision was the turning point.

Let us look at the basic issue. No one but a handful of ideologues in Australia has a good word to say for Russia on this issue. It was not necessary for Russia to invade Afghanistan for us to know what sort of power Russia is. It is not a revelation to learn that Russia is run by a pack of imperialists. The Prime Minister is trying to make Afghanistan an episode different in kind and degree from Russia’s invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia and he is doing so at a time when the weight of most considered opinion has conceded the opposite. Afghanistan may not have been an eastern bloc country as such, but it is a border country which has been essentially in the Soviet sphere of influence since 1919. The Russians believe in geo-political theories of the heartland. We know of the Russian oppression of satellite countries and the Baltic states. We know of the oppression of human rights in the Soviet Union. After all, our Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence brought down an excellent and comprehensive report on this subject last year. We know of the oppression of human rights in the Soviet Union due to the publicity given to the plight of its writers, intellectuals and would-be Jewish emigrants. We know that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is run by old hard liners.

Any informed observer would have known of the Russian influence in Afghanistan, particularly since the Marxist coup of 1978. On 4 January 1979 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that 100 Russian advisers had been publicly tortured and murdered in Afghanistan. Anyone concerned with that part of the world knew of the superpower involvement in Afghanistan over a long period and of the basic history of the constant conflict between tribal and racial groups, the lack of effective central government and the problem of the setting of boundaries. But now the Australian public is bewildered by the Prime Minister’s rhetoric and the results of it.

Looking back over the past weeks, what has it all been about? When the Prime Minister first said that Russia’s actions were cynically opportunistic my first reaction, given the Prime Minister’s record in the cynical opportunism stakes, was that perhaps the Prime Minister had said this out of admiration as much as condemnation. If the exercise has been all about having a peg to hang more defence spending on, there has been a lot of theatre about it. The defence elements of the Prime Minister’s statement will require a separate debate. One hopes and prays that we will be allowed to have a debate on it. I say that because there has been defence statement after defence statement in this Parliament over the last year and there has been no debate on it. The report by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which is known as the Katter report, was snuck in during the last hours of last year’s Parliament. The 1976 White Paper on defence, which sensibly put down defence spending options for five years, was scrapped, revamped and done away with. There has simply been no consistent thread in the defence policy of this Government.

If it had just been all about abusing Russians then there would have been little disagreement but we would not have known for what purpose. The Prime Minister says that the Russians will use the Olympic Games for propaganda purposes. Of course they will. But this has little to do with Afghanistan. As he says, and I agree, the Soviet Communist Party will use the Games to brainwash the Russian people, but this situation has always persisted. If the Prime Minister felt strongly about this aspect of it he would have accepted the views expressed about a year ago by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) on the Games. The Prime Minister projected himself onto the world stage not only as an angry man but also as one who was going to do what he could about the situation. What we could have done was impose sanctions, but that has now fallen flat through the Government’s own actions. The reason why the public is bewildered is that the invasion was accepted by the Prime Minister in the Cold War terms of the 1950s on the premises of the period of gun-boat diplomacy.

No other explanation was sought or seen other than a blitzkreig by Russia in a so-called nonaligned country for eventual control of oil and the acquisition of a warm-water port as a prelude to world conquest. I say ‘so-called non-aligned countries’ because over the last two or three years it has been run by increasingly ineffectual Marxist regimes. The strategic view as to the question of oil has arguments in its favour but not immediately. Russia has reserves of only 10 billion barrels short of those of Saudi Arabia and exports oil to Europe. It had a warm-water port in the Indian Ocean and gave it up. The water may be cold in Vladivostok and Petroplovask but it suffices for the Russian navy.

No response other than emphasising our horror, in words, has been put forward. All we stand for is condemnation. Little has been said about what should be done other than arming such renowned democrats as Zia al Huk. It is the Prime

Minister’s response and his frame of mind that have caused him to say that detente is dead, and the Minister for Defence backs him. I say that it is better for there to be a vague detente than a specific and deliberate war. Is the Prime Minister suggesting that his militant and warlike responses would have been a better form of management of that highly volatile and unstable period of the 1950s and 1960s?

Opposition to Russia and detente and heavy United States involvement in the Indian Ocean has long been the desire of the Prime Minister. It is obvious that he has confused his own Ministers, who are conspicuous by their lack of public utterances on the issue over the last month. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) dignified himself by wrecking the Government line on the Olympic Games while both the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) carefully put themselves well apart from the position and deluded Cold War rhetoric of the Prime Minister. The trip taken by the Foreign Minister was the sane one, the proper one for Australia and the professional one that would have identified us as a sensible medium power on which regional neighbours could rely. The Minister for Defence did not want to countenance talk of the use of tactical nuclear weapons. I suspect that he deplores the war-mongering elements of the Press in Australia.

As I have said, it is the Government’s actions which have wrecked the Government’s case. The Government’s actions on sanctions against Russia are now ridiculous. First rutile was strategic and to be banned and then it was not. It will still be used by Russia for rockets and jet planes. Extra wheat is strategic but existing contracts are to be filled- somewhat of a hollow gesture because we cannot physically ship more wheat. Wool is not strategic according to the Deputy Prime Minister. Apparently it is all right for the Russian bear to sleep in Australian wool blankets and kill Afghans in Australian wool uniforms as long as he does not get extra wheat. There is no sense in saying that wool is not strategic. The reason is that if the Russians pull out of the wool market the prices will collapse. This has nothing to do with the fact that Russia produces a lot of wool itself. Coarse grain shipments have been cancelled but no one seems to know what compensation will be paid to Australian growers. Australia continues to sell rifles to Russia and Russian cruise ships will continue to operate until the end of the cruise season. We have cancelled a fishing agreement and a visit by Russian basketballers but any trade that the National Country Party condones is to go ahead.

The Prime Minister’s use of sanctions is inconsistent, particularly with respect to our participation in the Olympics. At present we are all happily participating in the Winter Olympics. Is it all right to ski with the Russians but not to swim with them? Instead of standing over the Australian Olympic Federation and its sponsors, the Prime Minister should simply say that we will not participate if he really believes and has reasons to believe a world war is three days away and that the invasion is the greatest threat to world peace since World War II. If the threat is as bad as the Prime Minister has painted it we should exact every sanction against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. As it has transpired that we are not doing so, it follows that our athletes should not have to bear the brunt of the Prime Minister’s views. It is intolerable in a democracy for amateur sporting organisations to be forced to agree to a political belief.

The Prime Minister’s views are not consistently anti-communist any more. He praises the Chinese communists, he supports the Rhodesian marxists, and he recognises the most vicious murdering communist regime ever, that of Pol Pot. The Prime Minister’s views are not consistently pro-human rights. He supports and wishes to arm the present ruler of Pakistan, who recently murdered the former Prime Minister. He recognises Pol Pot and has had nothing to say about Russian-backed attacks on Eritrea- or at least not until this week- or the murders in Chile or on the trampling of human rights in countries closer to us such as Sri Lanka, Singapore, the Philippines and Indonesia. The Prime Minister’s views are not even consistently anti-aggression. He turned a blind eye to, if not encouraged, Indonesia’s killing and starvation of tens of thousands of Timorese on our doorstep. We can also cite China’s invasion of Vietnam and Vietnam’s invasion of Kampuchea.

The further away from Australia and the less likely it is that Australia can or will do anything about the situation, the harder the Prime Minister shouts. The last example was his African diplomacy, when his attempt to straddle the world like a colossus ended in Australia sending a token military force, as pan of the 1,200-men five-nation Commonwealth monitoring force, to Rhodesia following the Lancaster House settlement. On Afghanistan, the Prime Minister is attempting to repeat his colossus gymnastics and this time the price is not the safety of 150 Australian soldiers sent as a contribution to the ceasefire force in Rhodesia but the fate of Australia’s young athletes, who have devoted years of their lives to the pinnacle the prospect of the Olympic Games presents. Rhodesia is a huge international dilemma, and so is Afghanistan. We should not be any less concerned about either of them.

The Prime Minister’s sound and fury signifies next to nothing. While he roars and bellows on these great issues, Australia’s carefully built up relationships with the countries in our region are allowed to fall by the wayside. It is in this region that our chief interests lie- in the Association of South East Asian Nations and beyond to IndoChina and its stability, and in the South Pacific, where Australia’s historical role in a colonial setting is being transformed into a donor major power. It is the Kampuchean tragedy which presents our region with a huge refugee problem, affecting one of our closest neighbours, Malaysia, most seriously of all. Yet the fate of Kampuchea and its consequences, where Australia really could stand up and be counted and put her money where her mouth is, has been forgotten in the frenzy and the fray, as a preference for pointless posturing replaces the practical policies which can have enormous implications for the region in which we live.

To repeat, it is not that the Afghan crisis is any less serious than the Prime Minister suggests, it is more that other problems of foreign policy more real to Australia remain. We are not alone in this. For Middle East countries such as Jordan, for example, the biggest single issue of the creation of a Palestinian homeland has not been replaced by Afghanistan, any more than Afghanistan precedes concern for the return of civil war in Lebanon, with the prospect of the withdrawal of the Syrian peacekeeping force. Those are their main concerns. They are local ones with which they have to live, and so it should be for Australians. It is an accepted maxim of both good management and good sense that we should put our own house in order before sallying forth to sort out our neighbour’s, and for more than a decade we have been protesting that our house is in our region. Slowly and painstakingly we have sought to be accepted in the region as something other than an outpost of Western and alien influence. The credibility of that effort will have been seriously undermined by the Prime Minister’s dash to Washington at the drop of the first Afghan hat. Surely good sense and previous foreign policy propositions suggest that our first concern should have been to consult with our regional allies on a prospective joint course of action if we believed that Afghanistan was a threat to us, and so to them. Lee Kuan Yew will not be alone in seeing the travels of the Minister for Foreign Affairs as a sideshow to the main act and so seeing us as exactly what we are.

The Prime Minister has hence turned back the clock, not only to the days of the cold war, which were characterised by arms races and crises at every turn, but also to days when we ignored what we saw as an alien region in favour of close association with Europe and the West. His sins are compounded by a style of diplomacy to shout from the rooftops. We should surely get on quietly with what we think must be done to contain this power which the Prime Minister presented yesterday afternoon as so aggressive and expansionist. Such quiet diplomacy offers us and them the face-saver for mistaken estimates or illconceived goals. We learnt at the time of the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962 that the face-saver is the essential element in crisis management. For all the allies the Prime Minister has sought, to stand behind his case, the weight of much expert analysis- not the least that of George Kennan, the very architect of America’s policy of containment of the Soviet Union- is that the Soviet’s invasion of Afghanistan was more defensive than offensive in a traditional Soviet determination to ensure the stability and, to a degree, the loyalty of the territories which border the Soviet Union. As Mr Kennan wrote in the Melbourne Age of 14 February:

In the official American interpretation of what occurred in Afghanistan, no serious account appears to have been taken of such specific factors as geographic proximity -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Hon. J. D. M. Dobie

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

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

– The speech of the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) was full of mistakes. It can best be described by one mistake he made when he said that last year Australia had exported rifles to Russia and it may be that the Russians are using them in Afghanistan. The truth of that matter is that the Russians had exported sporting rifles to Australia which were sent back to Russia because they were found to be faulty. That typifies the grave errors that have come into this debate from the Australian Labor Party. In the course of the debate the Labor Party has sought to condemn the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for a thousand equally false reasons and to condemn the Australian Government for the same number of false reasons. If anything ought to be condemned in this debate, it is the Australian Labor Party.

Mr Bryant:

– Why?

Mr NIXON:

– I am glad the honourable member asked that question. It has been confusing the issues with regard to Australia ‘s reaction and response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The ALP has been trying to twist the issue into a domestic political affair, and it is the ALP, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in particular, that has been talking of khaki elections. For what reason? The answer is simple. The ALP has been unable to determine its policy on this matter. Apart from a lecture yesterday on history and geography, the Leader of the Opposition said nothing. The ALP believes therefore that it is best to try to gain a bit of political mileage out of its carping and knocking and so cover up the fact that, if it were in government, it would do absolutely nothing to support Australia’s allies over this whole affair. The Labor Party would have Australia look negative and impotent in the eyes of the Western world and, worse still, in the eyes of the South East Asian nations and Pacific Island nations amongst whom we live and who have joined in the abhorrence of Russia’s action. While the Labor Party might be happy to live with that sort of image, this Government will not. I am sure the vast majority of Australians would be disgusted and ashamed of their national government if it were to sit back and do nothing.

It is true that the Opposition has said that it abhors the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. That is fine, but apart from that it has said nothing positive whatsoever. The Leader of the Opposition has accused this Government of double standards, of hypocrisy, of engaging in selective boycotts, and of forcing our athletes to carry the can for the Government. It is the ALP that is being completely hypocritical over this issue. The Opposition Leader is very quick to accuse the Government of being inconsistent because it is not placing trade embargoes on sales to Russia of commodities such as wool. But is the Labor Party suggesting that we should do this? Apparently not. In a statement on 28 January the Opposition Leader, in outlining the ALP view, said:

We do not support unilateral action by one nation or a handful of nations because this will not be effective either in moral or economic terms. We support measures with widespread backing . . .

That is simply having two bob each way. It also shows that the Opposition Leader is not up with the facts. He seems to refuse to recognise one fundamental aspect of Australia’s position and that is that, along with other countries, we are cooperating with the United States. That is what we were asked to do on this issue. It is the United States, as leader of the Western world, which has taken the initiative. The United States sought Australia’s support in ensuring that the 17 million tonnes grain shortfall to the Soviet Union not be met by Australian grain. We agreed to that request, as did Canada and the European Economic Community. However, in accordance with the measured approach taken by the United States, we were not asked to ban completely our grain trade with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Again in accordance with the measured approach taken by Western governments, we have not been asked to place any trade embargo on our sales of wool to the Soviet Union. There is no inconsistency in the Government’s policy. The same thing applies to the export of minerals.

It all comes back to the basic thrust of our policy being of a supportive nature. We are not taking the lead, nor are we trying to take the lead. This Government believes that the United States has acted firmly and responsibly to the invasion of Afghanistan and we believe that Australia has a role as an ally of the United States to co-operate with the United States. As I have just quoted, the Leader of the Opposition says that the ALP supports ‘measures with widespread backing ‘. All I can say is that if he was not so ignorant of the facts he would be supporting Australia ‘s policy.

The Leader of the Opposition seems to be of the opinion that the United States has the support of only Australia and no one else. In fact, he may be interested to know that many other countries have adopted attitudes similar to that of Australia in co-operating with the United States. The United Kingdom, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Denmark, Luxemburg, New Zealand, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, China and Canada are just some of the countries I could mention. The European Economic Community and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have initiated multilateral measures, but no doubt the Opposition would still sit back and claim that the measures do not have widespread backing. The best that the Leader of the Opposition can do is complain like an overgrown schoolboy that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has not given him equal time to politicise on the domestic scene a matter of grave international concern to which this Government has swiftly and correctly addressed itself.

One has to wonder whether the Opposition is aware of some of the statements that the world leaders have made about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and about counter moves that are being taken. The President of France and the West German Chancellor have jointly called for an immediate end to Soviet intervention. They see the intervention as being ‘of a kind which could set in motion a process which, step by step, and whatever intentions might be, could have the gravest consequences for the world ‘. Is that not consistent with the Australian Government’s position?

Chancellor Schmidt, from whose statements the Leader of the Opposition so selectively quoted in his speech, told the West German Bundestag on 1 7 January:

The United States has resorted to a number of measures to make it abundantly clear to the Soviet Union that international law cannot be violated with impunity. It has called upon its friends to take the same approach. This we shall do, especially within the framework of the European community and the COCOM (Co-ordinating Committee on Exports of Technology to Communist Countries).

Chancellor Schmidt, in the same address, further said:

We know from experience, especially during the Berlin crisis of the late fifties and early sixties, that we can rely on the United States of America. The United States is irreplaceable for our security.

The West German Foreign Minister, Herr Genscher, in a radio interview on 26 January, said:

It would be an illusion were anyone in Moscow to assume he could separate the Europeans from the United States in this situation.

The President of the European Commission, Mr Jenkins, who would not be unknown to some members of the Opposition, addressed the Political Affairs Committee of the European Parliament on 3 1 January. He said that it was of great importance that the European Economic Community demonstrated its solidarity both internally and with other nations in its reaction to Soviet aggression. In particular, he said that the Community should insist that a wedge could not be driven between the Community and the United States. President Giscard d ‘Estaing of France, and Prime Minister Gandhi of India, on 27 January issued a joint statement in which they said:

Any situation that has been brought about by the use of force in international relations, or by intervention or interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, is not acceptable.

I say to the House that the position adopted by the Australian Government on this issue is consistent with that of a great number of countries around the world. Let the Opposition not fail to recognise it. The Opposition Leader has said he would support an ‘ effective boycott ‘ of the Olympic Games. He said on 22 January:

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

He repeated that statement in his speech yesterday. That is good stuff; that is the sort of comment we should hear more often from the Opposition. But within a minute of saying that, he retracted it by saying that Labor opposes the boycott and supports the wishes of our athletes to compete at the Games. So he contradicted himself in the speech that he delivered on that subject in this House yesterday. The situation is that there are some 35 governments of countries in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Pacific, the Caribbean and Latin America, that are in favour of an Olympics boycott if Soviet troops are not withdrawn from Afghanistan. Does the Opposition not regard that as ‘effective’? If not, then I do not know what it does regard as effective. Thirty-five countries, deploring the invasion of Afghanistan, are prepared to ask their Olympic teams not to compete in Moscow. I can tell the House, that the Australian Government believes that would be effective. The Australian Government firmly believes that a boycott of the Olympic Games would be the one measure that nations could take that would prove to be a massive blow to the Soviet propaganda machine and to the Soviet regime.

There are some who claim that we should not mix politics with sport. Two points need to be made here. Firstly, the Soviet Union regards the Moscow Olympics as a political rather than a sporting event. Therefore, it is impossible not to mix politics with sport in this case.

There is no doubt that the Soviet Government will view the participation of any country which is represented at the Moscow Olympics as a political triumph for itself. It will see participation in the Olympics as being acceptance by all those countries represented of its policies and its intervention in the affairs of Afghanistan. To press home to those who need further convincing of the Kremlin’s politicising activities in respect of these games, let me quote from an official party document which is already claiming that the holding of the Games in Moscow is ‘convincing proof of the universal recognition of the historical importance and correctness of the course of our country’s foreign policy’. How can anybody hear those words and not recognise the sort of propaganda which will flow from Russia if the Games are not boycotted. Russia has been planning the politics and the propaganda of the 1980 Olympic Games ever since it was awarded the Games.

At least on one point it does appear that the Leader of the Opposition recognises that these Games are political because on AM on 23 January, when asked whether the Labor Party finds it acceptable to politicise the Games, the Leader of the Opposition said:

Well, you can’t de-politicise sport any more than you can de-politicise cultural exchanges or scientific exchanges

It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition is a very confused member of this House. He really cannot make up his mind or determine what it is that he wants. Given that and given that he now does not support the ban, one can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party support the politics of the Soviet Union in relation to the coming Olympics.

I cannot see how anyone can possibly support the Olympics being held in Moscow in light of the Afghanistan invasion when one considers that the first rule laid down as governing the Games refers to the political aims of the Olympics as the strengthening of peace and friendly relations between the states. Furthermore, it is required that the Games cannot be influenced by racial, religious or political discrimination. The Soviet Union has blatantly broken the rules of the Games.

The Labor Party has tried desperately to paint Australia’s policies and attitudes towards the invasion of Afghanistan as either confused or ineffective. It has failed. The Australian policies are straightforward and they are effective and they are working in conjunction with those of other allied nations. The Opposition should wake up to itself and get behind rather than out of step with the actions of the United States, Australia and many other countries. Writing in the Australian on 3 1 January the Leader of the Opposition claimed that ‘Australian reprisals have had the equivalent impact on the Kremlin of the explosive force of blancmange’. The only blancmange in this debate is the Leader of the Labor Party.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The Opposition unequivocally opposes military intervention in the affairs of any country, and the amendment that has been moved on behalf of the Opposition makes that perfectly clear. We cannot say that military intervention is all right when the United States is involved at the request of another country and not all right when the Soviet Union is so involved. There is a need to be consistent about that particular aspect. There are many Australians who regard the new-found concern of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) about Afghanistan as cynical, political exploitation of a tragic international event. Australians wonder why the Prime Minister and his Government have not exhibited the same concern about the brutal genocide that has occurred under the savage and bloodthirsty Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea. Why is it that we still recognise the murderous Pol Pot regime and did little more at the recent ASEAN conference than arrange for the Foreign Minister of Malaysia to use his good offices to influence the Vietnamese Government about the situation in Kampuchea? How do we reconcile the paranoia of the Prime Minister about Afghanistan with his indifference to Indonesia’s ruthless oppression of the people of Timor? We should bear in mind that this event occurred some four weeks after the LiberalNational Country Party Government was elected in 1975. There has been no mission of mercy to Timor. There have been no intimidatory threats to Indonesia about that situation. Timor, a former ally, has been denied.

Why has the Prime Minister taken off on the Afghanistan trail like a blowfly at a barbecue? Why is he bristling with belligerence in his selfappointed role as the international agent provocateur concerning events in Afghanistan? What a sad and pathetic spectacle it was to see our Prime Minister, slavish and sycophant, sacrifice Australia ‘s independence to become the messenger boy, the self-appointed and unpaid emissary of the United States of America. Can it be that all the posturing, all the provocative pronouncements, the threat of trade embargoes and the boycott of the Olympics are designed for miserable, petty, partisan political purposes? Is all this just the Fraser answer to his failing economic policies, his flagging election prospects? If it did not work for Joe Clark in Canada I cannot see how it is going to work for Malcolm Fraser in

Australia. The Australian people are a wake up; they are not going to fall for the sabre rattling, for the desperate attempt to achieve a khaki election atmosphere. I believe that the Government is out of step with the Australian people on this matter.

I was interested to read the National Times survey commissioned on Thursday last, 24 hours after the Prime Minister’s address to the nation on the Afghanistan issue. The question was asked:

Do you feel the recent Soviet actions affect you personally or not?

Some 26 per cent of Australians surveyed answered yes. Some 67 per cent answered no. The following question also was asked:

Do you think the Australian Government should or should not prevent athletes who want to compete in the Olympic Games from participating?

Some 24 per cent said that they should be prevented. Some 70 per cent said that they should not. I believe that the Government should think again.

I was interested to receive from the Parliamentary Library a table indicating the occasions since the first modern Olympics in 1896 when armed conflicts were taking place simultaneously with the Games. I observe that there have been 16 scheduled events since that year, but the only games cancelled were those which coincided with the First and Second World Wars. On every other occasion some part of the world was at war. Honourable members will be interested to study the table for themselves and I seek permission to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I thank the House. Afghanistan, one of the most pauperised nations in the world, is suddenly the subject of the Prime Minister’s passionate concern. We only comment that that is out of character. There has always been cause for concern about that troubled land yet the West, including Australia and the United States of America, have virtually abdicated from any responsibility concerning it. The per capita income of the 15 million to 18 million Afghan people is said to be only $150 per annum. Afghanistan’s gross national product for 1975-76, the last year for which figures seem to be available, amounted to only $1.6 billion- an amount, we are told, that is less than the United States spends on dog food. Only 10 per cent of the Afghan population is literate and less than half of those have any secondary education. Some 50 per cent of all Afghan children die before reaching 5 years of age.

I note that Australian aid seems to have been very inadequate. In the 33 years from 1946 to 1979 a total of $3.5m has been allocated-half as much as we sent to Nepal, or to Korea. Australia has always given Afghanistan a low priority. We have no diplomatic mission there and virtually no trade with it. In 1978 Australia and the West virtually gave de facto power to the Soviet Union by abdicating entirely from Afghanistan’s affairs. Afghanistan is an unstable, Islamic, tribal, feudal state which at the moment could actually be in an ungovernable situation. The region is destabilised by a combination of influence exerted by the Soviet KGB, the CIA, the Iranian secret security forces and insurgents from Pakistan backed by the United States of America. Having had an opportunity to lead a parliamentary delegation to India, Pakistan and Iran, having gone to the border area of Afghanistan, to the Khyber Pass, having talked with Mrs Gandhi and the late Mr Bhutto, the former President of Pakistan, I am able to say that they were quite unequivocal in their contention that trouble was brewing as a result of CIA activity in their countries. We know of the events that have transpired.

Afghanistan shares a 1,200 kilometre border with the Soviet Union and has always been enormously dependent upon it. Afghanistan was the first country to recognise the Soviet Union after the 1918-19 Revolution. In 1979, 70 per cent of Kabul’s foreign debt was owed to Moscow. Also, Afghanistan has developed a great dependency on Soviet road connections northward as an outlet for its exports because of the unsatisfactory or unreliable nature of outlets through Pakistan, into Karachi especially. Some 75 per cent of its trade passes through the Soviet Union. In recent times the outlet to Karachi, and that to Iran as well, have become unstable.

Afghanistan is a country of subsistence farmers, nomadic shepherds and a peculiar mixture of religion and rackets involving gun runners and drug peddlers. As I have said, probably it is almost ungovernable. The monarchy was overthrown in 1975 by a cousin of the king and since 1978 there have been three Marxist leaders, Taraki, Amin and Karmal. There have long been border disputes. Afghanistan has never accepted the Durand line as its frontier with Pakistan. That is an irrational boundary and a legacy of the British rule in India of 1893. She even voted against Pakistan’s admission to the United Nations in protest against the border issue.

On 3 December 1978, President Brezhnev of the Soviet Union signed with Taraki, the then Prime Minister of Afghanistan, a 20-year treaty of friendship. It was certainly not the first treaty between those countries. It committed the Soviet

Union, amongst other things, to providing military aid when called upon. We find that on 14 February 1979 United States Ambassador Dubs was killed. The United States responded by cutting aid from $13m to $2. 6m, thus’ forcing an even greater dependency on the Soviet Union. Since April 1978 the Soviet has signed 30 agreements with Afghanistan and its agencies so there is nothing new about either the Soviet presence in, or its involvement with, Afghanistan. The question is: Can the massive escalation of the Russian presence, with the connivance of Karmal, the new Marxist Prime Minister of the country, be justified? The fact is that the Soviet Union, with 80 million Moslems within its borders, is concerned about the Islamic uprising in the region- in Iran, in Saudi Arabia and in Iraq and on the frontier with Pakistan. There is a contention that the Central Intelligence Agency is active. So in this troubled area I suppose it is not surprising that the major power should seek to stabilise the situation. I suppose that the situation can be likened to the United States finding trouble in its region- in Cuba. Such precedents are not uncommon in world events. It seems to me that if the Islamic world is in such turmoil as to destabilise the region, again the Russian response is no surprise.

I suppose that if we accept the ungovernable state of Afghanistan we should be looking for some kind of alternative rather than for the rhetorical abuse which has categorised the approach of the Prime Minister and of the Government to this question. If the Soviet Union were to leave Afghanistan it is quite possible that turmoil could be the order of the day, and I put to the House that we should seriously be thinking of how that particular vacuum should be filled. It would not be unreasonable to contend that the United Nations, at the request of an Australian government, should be setting about an examination of the situation in that country to ascertain the extent to which destabilisation is the order of the day. If a fact-finding mission were to establish that the Government of Afghanistan was incapable of sustaining peace in the region it is well within the realms of possibility that a United Nations peace keeping force could be sent to that country to fill the vacuum.

The Australian Government, in my view, is playing with a very dangerous situation indeed. I was interested to see the trade figures that prevail between the Soviet Union and Australia. We see our present Prime Minister plodding away at the great Russian bear, I suppose secretly and privately hoping that the bear will not be aroused and will not make any attempt to strike back. If it did so, the Australian economy could virtually be put into the danger zone at will. I note from the Australian Financial Review of 24 January this comment:

The stakes involved are large in cash terms. This year with the big wheat contracts already signed with the USSR, Australian exports to Russia will probably exceed $600m but imports from Russia will amount to less than S 10m.

That is the kind of critical balance of trade situation with which we are playing. As I say, if there were any attempt on the part of the Soviet Union to take reprisals against Australia our economy could be swept into an oblivious state virtually overnight. There has been a lot of nonsense and ballyhoo about this business. We are sick of the warmongering and exploitative attitude of this Prime Minister, who is mainly intent on covering up his own deficiencies by distracting the people from the economic failures of his Government. I say on behalf of the Opposition that there should be a more moderate role. We say that we should condemn the Soviet Union but that we should be rational in our approach to wild expenditure and certainly in the preservation of our favourable trading balance with one of our great trading partners.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

– I welcome the report of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in the form of a motion to this House on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and our response. The Prime Minister’s report was, as befitted the occasion, solemn, measured and realistic. The Opposition’s approach, regretfully, has been to treat the issue as an everyday knockabout political issue and to treat it in a superficial way. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), in particular, has responded in his usual scratchy, half-clever, pop-journalistic way. What passes for his team, with the exception of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), has behaved in a similar fashion. I regret to observe that the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), who I know has more sense, made remarks at a young socialist conference that he will regret for the rest of his political life.

Now, I think the Opposition has to realise in this matter that it is not dealing with any ordinary knock-about political issue. It really is, in this case, dealing with issues of the real world. It will be judged by the real world. The Opposition enjoys playing political games perhaps. It may accuse the Prime Minister of playing political games, but he has been utterly consistent in warning us of Russian intentions over some years. If this is a game, then it is a game in which the penalty for losing is not the prospect of a return match but the certainty of subjugation and a possibility of death.

That leads me to the question of the Olympic Games. At what point does the International Olympic Committee recognise human events that transcend in importance the continuation of its own machinery? That point was not reached obviously in 1 936 when nazi Germany exploited, for its own purposes, the fact that the 1936 Games were awarded to Berlin. A regime that was already killing Jews and went on to kill countless millions of the world’s people was given respectability by the immutable rules of the International Olympic Committee. In 1940 and 1944 there were no Games. Our youth, whose inalienable right to compete in Moscow is being so vigorously defended by the Australian Labor Party, were being slaughtered in Europe, in the Middle East, in Asia and the Pacific. Let me remind honourable members of the numbers involved. In World War II, 34,000 Australians died, most of them of Olympic age. One hundred and eighty-one thousand were wounded, many of them permanently maimed. By contrast, Australia sent 155 young people to compete in the 1976 Olympics, accompanied by 72 officials, a total of 227 people. How many Australians would still have sent teams to Berlin if they had thought that there was even an outside chance that by staying away they could have prevented the tragedy that followed?

In the case of the Moscow Olympics, the host country will, at the time the torch is lit on Russian soil, still be killing people, in all probability, in the small adjacent land of Afghanistan. The killing will probably still be going on. If the Games appear to be a Soviet triumph, will Yugoslavia follow Afghanistan as the occupation of the Rhineland followed Hitler’s Olympic festival? I have thought long and hard about this and, unlike the honourable member for Prospect and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), I have to confess that before this I had not treated this subject with sufficient seriousness. But, I have come to the conclusion that the parallel with 1936 is sufficiently close to give us a chance to influence the course of future events by staying away from Moscow this year.

Now there are two principal obstacles to an effective boycott of the Moscow Olympics. The first is the Olympic bureaucracy which has declared itself to be beyond the influence of governments. I quote from the Melbourne Age of 6 February 1980. It states:

The president of the International Olympic Committee, Lord Killanin, says it is apparent that some Governments do not know the Olympic rules.

In a telex message to the Australian Olympic Federation and other national Olympic committees, Lord Killanin has issued a reminder that the committees are autonomous and must resist pressures of all kinds- political, economic or religious.

He says it is not for governments to impinge on the committees ‘ operations.

The vice-president of the Australian Olympic Federation, a zealous defender of the Olympic laws, was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 79 January 1980. The article states:

There is no third option for the Olympics- the Games will either go ahead in Moscow or be cancelled, the vicepresident of the Australian Olympic Federation, Mr David McKenzie, said yesterday.

Mr McKenzie, a former Olympic competitor and now Australian member of the International Olympic Committee, said the games could not be transferred to other sites.

He had yet to find one member of the IOC who believed that there had been a breach of the Olympic charter which would justify either cancelling or moving the Games.

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 22 January 1980, Mr McKenzie- the same gentleman- said:

There has been no infringement of the rules by Moscow, and the IOC presently has no valid ground for changing the terms of the original contract by postponing or cancelling the games, or by awarding them to another city.

Moscow has not infringed the rules! To which rules is he referring? It is the IOC rules of course. These rules contain no provisions against invasion or against murder. Ironically the IOC rule that is so clearly breached by the Soviet Union is the same rule used by Lord Killanin and his officials to justify their present position. It is rule 24c of the Olympic Charter which states that: . . national Olympic committees must be autonomous and must resist all pressures of any kind whatsoever, whether of a political, religious or economic nature’.

The national Olympic committee of the Soviet Union is incapable of meeting that basic requirement. To this extent the IOC has unwittingly created a political ediface of great value to a totalitarian regime, all the more so since it cannot be influenced beyond a certain point by the national committees genuinely operating under the Olympic charter, which includes our own Australian Olympic Federation, within a democratic country. To my shame, I was not aware of this fundamental fault in the IOC or in the Olympic Charter before studying it on this occasion. The IOC has thus created a juggernaut that, like Jellicoe ‘s obsolete fleet at Jutland, cannot change course before it is too late. Jellicoe was lucky, as the Germans ran away, but we may not be so lucky. The London Economist captured the problem exactly when, in its issue of 2 February 1980, it stated:

It is right to put rude pressure on these committees of nice, old, public-spirited men, not because they are unfeeling, but because they now portray Bagehot ‘s description of the worst failing of a bureaucracy. They imagine ‘the elaborate machinery of which they form a part, and from which they derive their dignity, to be a grand and achieved result, not a working and changable instrument. But in a miscellaneous world, there is now one evil and now another’.

This now leads me to the second obstacle to effective action against the Russians and that is the spinelessness of so much of the free world in the face of aggression. It is the spinelessness of those who contributed to the events that led to Munich and the invasion of Poland. It is the spinelessness demonstrated in full measure by the Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament. On 22 January 1980 he made a statement in which he said:

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

Mr Birney:

– Who said that?

Mr CARLTON:

-The Leader of the Opposition said it in this Parliament. He went on from there to retreat entirely from that statement. Unlike his colleague the honourable member for Prospect, he has not had the courage to realise that to hold a view is not sufficient; one has to argue for it and persuade people that it is right. In this case he has given another demonstration of his unerring capacity to lead from behind. He said in a later Press release that it was the clear wish of the International Olympic Committee that the Olympic Games proceed in Moscow, that it was correct not to be swayed by matters of the moment, to have a cool judgment, and that he fully supported its decision to proceed. He said that members of the IOC, as representative of the great sporting organisations of the world, should be heeded in this matter. If something is worth fighting for it is surely worth more unequivocal support than that. Frankly, the reliance on the IOC’s view is a measure of the depth of thinking displayed by the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. Once the IOC had made its expected confirmation of the 1974 decision- I repeat, 1974- to go to Moscow, the Leader of the Opposition made a positively sickening statement deferring entirely to that decision. By his statement he has abdicated all responsibility for the broad human issues involved in this question to a body which not only has no interest in the broader issues, but also has awarded the 1980 Games to a National Olympic Committee that cannot possibly operate in accordance with the Olympic Charter.

In total contrast to this approach, the Prime Minister has recognised the broader implications of the Moscow Olympics and has adopted a clear position of leadership to the nation. He has also, through his own discussions and those of the Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock), gone out into the world to convince others that they should not go to Moscow. The people to whom he has been talking are members of governments who are responsible for matters ultimately of life and death. They are not Olympic committees who are responsible for sporting administration within a rigid constitution that cannot be changed in the light of any immediate human facts.

We on this side of the House, supported at the very least by the honourable member for Prospect on the other side of the House, will go out into the country to argue for what we believe to be right regardless of the current state of public opinion and regardless of any day to day wobbles in the opinion polls. Indeed, we will speak to a public which has yet to hear all the arguments. It is extraordinarily easy to create public concern about athletes who have trained for years, who have got up at four o’clock in the morning, many of whom come from the most disadvantaged circumstances and whose main chance in life is to achieve an Olympic gold medal. I fully understand that for these people, this extraordinary opportunity to do something which has been revered by the whole world up to this time is something that we should consider very seriously. But unfortunately the matter has to be considered on broader grounds than that. I think the numbers I gave earlier of about 150 Olympic contenders and a total delegation of just over 200 people, compared with over 200,000 people killed in the Second World War, puts this issue in its proper perspective.

Despite the noise emanating from the Opposition it is clear that it agrees with the Government that broad trade sanctions imposed by Australia on the Soviet Union would have no salutary effect on the future actions of the Soviets. Opposition members try to obscure the position by making personal attacks on Ministers of the Government. When will they learn that the Australian electorate is not so stupid that it fails to understand that all sections of” the Australian economy depend upon each other, that every bale of wool which is exported helps to keep car workers in their jobs and that every tonne of iron ore which is exported helps to pay pensions and family allowances? The Opposition will fail in its attempt to create this kind of division. It must address itself to the wider issues. Also, we in this House must address ourselves in the future to the wider problems of the constitution of the IOC and the nature of the Olympic Charter itself.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan the Australian Labor Party joined with the Government in condemning the outrageous interference and aggression towards that country.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– How about invasion?

Mr COHEN:

– I will say invasion if the honourable member so wishes. There can be no excuse or explanation for the Soviet Union’s action- none whatsoever. We reject completely the legitimate spheres of influence philosophy that permit super powers to intervene in smaller neighbouring countries if the internal events in that country are not to the super power’s liking. How this particular philosophy ever became acceptable is beyond my comprehension. It may be legitimate for any country, super powers included, to intervene if a neighbouring country indicates by its actions, military or political, that it has aggressive intentions towards its neighbour, but it has not the right to intervene just because it does not like the political philosophy or the political leadership of that country.

The aggression of the Soviet Union has served to remind us just what sort of country we are dealing with. It is a country in which basic human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to strike, free elections and a free Press are totally denied to its people. It has not hesitated to use brutal military force, as it did against Hungary and Czechoslovakia when it felt that one of its satellites was taking an independent line. Honourable members should make no mistake about the Opposition’s resolve toward the Soviet Union. We hold it in deep, full and abiding contempt. When this recent outrage by the Soviet Union occurred and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) called for embargoes and boycotts, our first reaction was that the Prime Minister really believed what he was saying about the Russians’ aggression and was prepared to call upon all Australians to make sacrifices. Economic, cultural and sporting embargoes were to be imposed that would be shared equally by the Australian people.

At first we were told that there would be restrictions on the sale of wheat to Russia. This, we were told by the Sydney Sun, would ‘hit Russia where it hurts’. The Sun called upon us to follow the United States even if it did damage our fragile economy. The Sun showed a little bit more backbone than one prominent member of the farming community whose first reaction on hearing that the United States would ban sales of wheat to Russia could not contain his joy. He forecast increased sales of Australian wheat as Russia sought to replace the wheat which was withdrawn by the United States.

Mr Baillieu:

– Do you support that?

Mr COHEN:

– I was driving to Canberra at the time. I nearly vomited when I heard that particular gentleman make the statement. The show of firm resolve by Australia, particularly the most virulent anti-communist section of the community, did not take long to fall apart within a few days of harvester rattling as someone gently reminded the Government that it was going to cost money, that it was going to cost dollars. Suddenly Government members discovered that they were not quite so outraged by Russian aggression as they had been before they found out what it was going to cost. The Prime Minister may have stiffened their backbones a little if he had told them that the cost of sacrificing wheat sales to the Soviet Union would be borne by the whole community and not just by the wheat farmers. The Government was prepared to fight to the last drop of the wheat farmers ‘ blood.

The next activity to feel the wrath of the Australian Government was the tourist industry. Russian cruise ships operating out of Australia were to cease their activities, but not, let it be noted, until the present season was over.

Mr Birney:

– That is sensible.

Mr COHEN:

– Yes, it is sensible. One minute we are accused of not taking a hard line against the Russians and are told that we should forget about the advantages of going to the Olympic Games, that we should react emotionally, and now members opposite are talking about being rational. What do they want?

Mr Baillieu:

-What did Keating say?

Mr COHEN:

-I do not know what the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) said. I know what I am saying. I said that the cruise ships were not to stop until after the season was over. There is no doubt that by this time the Russian bear must have been shaking in its caves as the Australian koala roared its defiance. We will show those Russian so-and-so’s what we think of them! Then into the act came that super patriot, the famous red-baiting Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony). He informed us that wool could never be regarded as a strategic material. I wonder what the 80,000 Russians wore when they launched their attack into Afghanistan in a subzero winter; I suppose cotton jeans and safari suits, or maybe just jockstraps and slippers. Mr Anthony’s view of strategic material was that it composed only those items that could be used directly- I stress the word ‘directly’- for the production of military weapons.

Australia moved quickly to ban the export of rutile, which everybody knows is used in the production of titanium, a low weight, high strength material essential for military planes and missile heads. I understand that Australia exports less than a couple of million dollars worth of rutile to the Soviet Union. At last Australia had found something of strategic value to deny the Soviet aggressors. We waited with bated breath for news of the collapse of the Russian military machine but, lo and behold, within a matter of days rutile was to be withdrawn from the list of exports denied to the Soviet Union. At the same time as the Prime Minister was storming around the world rattling his gum leaves at the Russian bear, and talking about massive defence buildups and the reintroduction of conscription and, of course, the withdrawal of Australia from the Olympic Games, the sand mining companies, which have done more to damage the Australian environment than any other sector in history, had put pressure on the Government to withdraw the ban on rutile. The Australian public was informed that the rutile to be sold to Russia was used only for white paint- no doubt to paint the tanks white for their travels around Afghanistan in the winter snow. Nobody would know what the rutile was used for.

I cannot recall a greater act of treachery to the Australian people, and our allies the United States, than the selling of rutile to the Soviet Union. One would have to go back prior to World War II and Sir Robert Menzies ‘s selling of pig iron to Japan to find a greater act of treachery, the ultimate act of hypocrisy. While the Prime Minister and his colleagues were attempting to create a war hysteria as a prelude to the 1 980 election, as they talked about defence build-ups and conscription, they were merrily supplying the Russians with war materials that could be used against Australian and American troops, should it ever come to that. If that sounds over-dramatic, I would remind honourable members of the speech made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton).

In a number of overseas papers it has been mentioned that West Germany, Canada and the United States are in an election year. So are we. None of those governments will go to the people with such an abysmal record of broken promises and economic failures as the present Australian Government. The Government that four years ago promised a return to boom times has totally failed the Australian people. Inflation is now into double digits and is rising, and unemployment is around half a million and will continue to rise as further school leavers register. Petrol prices are going through the roof as the Government uses world parity pricing as its excuse to rip-off thousands of millions of dollars from the Australian motorist. Public opinion polls have shown just how much trouble the Government is in with the electorate and how badly the Prime Minister needed an issue to take the economic mess that it had created off the front pages.

Finally, the Prime Minister came to the decision that the real Australian response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan would be to withdraw Australia from the Olympic Games in Moscow. The Australian Labor Party’s view was that if a total boycott of the Games could be effected, or a near total boycott, it could certainly have some impact on informing ordinary Russians of the rest of the world’s view of their action in Afghanistan. But for it to be effective it would have to be a near total boycott; that is, the independent countries of the world, particularly those which are significant sporting nations, should agree not to compete. These would have to include countries such as West Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and China as well as the United States and Australia.

We can all recall that in 1976 some 39 African nations withdrew from the Olympic Games because of the New Zealand rugby team’s involvement with South African rugby. In my view this was a ridiculous action by those countries at the time. They had absolutely no bearing on the Games other than to deny many talented African athletes the once in a lifetime opportunity to compete at the Games. I could never see the logic in punishing hundreds of their own athletes because of the irresponsible action of one sporting organisation, the New Zealand Rugby Board.

It is now history that the Montreal Games went ahead with the absence of the African athletes barely noticed. However, not only is it essential that the major sporting nations of the world boycott the Olympics but also that these same nations, including Australia, carry out trade and cultural boycotts as well. The Australian public simply will not buy the argument that the only people who should be forced to make a scarifice, to show contempt for the Russians, are Australian athletes. Initially, the reaction of the Australian public was the same as that of the Government, to boycott the Olympics. But as they saw the Government backtracking on every other embargo because it looked like losing money their support for the Government’s view turned to contempt. They saw it as humbug and hypocrisy, and they are right.

Their attitude is now turning from contempt to anger as the Government goes further than just badgering the Australian Olympic Committee. Now it is telling the Olympic sponsors to withdraw their support. The Commonwealth Bank has pulled out as a sponsor. The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) has threatened to withdraw Australian Olympians’ passports. What other interpretation can be placed on the statement by him that an Australian passport was a privilege and not a right? What a contemptible, arrogant statement by the Minister. Let me remind the House that in the days when the Minister’s party was an ardent advocate of Australians playing sport with South Africa and the vicious attacks upon the Labor Party because of its argument that sport and politics did not mix, the Labor Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, made it clear that he would never stop Australians going abroad to play sport in South Africa. We would deny visas to South African teams wishing to play in Australia, but at no stage was it suggested that we would withdraw an Australian’s passport to prevent him doing what he wished abroad. We certainly tried to discourage them but never refused them a passport.

Yesterday we heard the same Minister, in response to a question I asked the Prime Minister, give a reply that was frightening in its implications for the basic freedoms we take for granted in this country. In the question to the Minister I said:

Is the Prime Minister aware that 24 of the 26 international sporting federations have stated that they will not support a boycott of the Olympic Games in Moscow and that they will not sanction any rival games to the Olympics. Is he also aware that the general assembly of international federations has stated that it will not accede to an alternative games to the Olympics? Does he realise that, if the alternative international games he is advocating do proceed, all those who participate may be suspended from further international competition?

I will quote part of the Minister’s reply. It was the Minister for Home Affairs who replied and not the Prime Minister. Mr Ellicott had this to say:

Over 30 nations in this world have already indicated that they would support such a boycott. The Government would expect that in that event the Olympic committees in those countries would fall behind the governments in those countries. I can assure the honourable member that if that occurred the Australian Government would certainly expect that the Australian Olympic Committee would fall well and truly behind the Government.

He went on to say:

I also remind honourable members of an important matter, that is, that in a country such as Australia there is only one body that can decide matters relating to international affairs, and that is the Federal Government. It is the Federal Government’s duty and responsibility to make a decision on matters affecting Australia’s security and international relations. If the Government makes such a decision it would expect everybody in the country to give it the attention it well deserves.

He is saying that no one denies the Federal Government’s responsibility for international relations, but since when has this country, this Government, ever had the right to deny citizens of Australia where they travel abroad? It is a disgraceful statement by the Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-My first observation is to note that for the first time in my limited experience in this House the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) has arranged the business of the House to allow full and immediate debate on a matter of significance to the nation and to the people of Australia. I trust that that course of action will be pursued in the future. It is disappointing to note the way in which the issue of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ invasion of Afghanistan is being cast aside by some commentators and, sadly, by some honourable members opposite in favour of a personal attack on the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). One of the most inane outbursts was broadcast on the radio program AM ibis morning when the Victorian Secretary of the Amalgamated Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union, John Halfpenny, stated with great authority that the issue of the invasion of Afghanistan is quite separate from the question of whether Australian athletes and officials should attend the Moscow Olympics.

That technique has been adopted by many members of the Opposition. They admit the seriousness of the situation, the threat to world peace, and yet they cannot seem to apply their minds to consider how Australia and other countries should react. Apart from taking a blatantly political stance on the question of a boycott of the Olympic Games, we have not yet heard one constructive idea or proposition which the Labor Opposition would pursue to demonstrate to the USSR that the Government condemns the Soviets ‘ expansionary international policy. The Opposition has not identified one sanction, one embargo, it would apply if it had the chance. Yet it claims to be concerned about that type of sanction to apply against the USSR. The Prime Minister has announced a number of measures aimed at the Soviet people to make it clear that the Government of Australia condemns the USSR’s action which has resulted in the loss of autonomy of one small formerly non-aligned country.

Every member of this House is well aware that Australia’s significance in international politics is comparatively minor. A nation of 14 million people cannot alone seek to influence a super power. Australia can, however, seek to promote international debate and play its part in the foundation of an international reaction to the Soviet invasion. The Olympic boycott is one of several measures being debated in the majority of overseas countries. No magical formula or process is available to the countries of this world which will produce an instant world view on issues of this type. Diplomatic representations, face to face discussions like those recently undertaken by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock), and regional and group meetings are the means by which a world consensus is achieved. Those processes are continuing now.

Notwithstanding that, we have the incredible situation where the Labor Opposition has preempted those consultative processes in declaring that Australia should not boycott the Olympic Games. Yet the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) stated on 8 February and again yesterday that the Australian Labor Party had urged the Prime Minister to support only an effective boycott of the Games. Australia is not now in a position to know whether an effective boycott will be achieved. Many countries have not yet made a final decision. Present indications are, however, that an effective boycott will be achieved. Approximately 35 governments have requested their national Olympic committees not to support the staging of the Games in Moscow. Those countries include the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Kenya, Japan, China and many others. France has stated that it will not send a team unless the Games have genuine world wide attendance. World opinion is, therefore, in the process of being crystallised.

If the Australian Olympic Federation ultimately decides to ignore the request of this Government, that should not be interpreted as a political defeat. If the Australian team does not go to Moscow we on this side must not interpret that as a political victory for this Government. We are not debating an issue where one party should be seen to win and another lose. Honourable members will be aware that views throughout the community on this issue of the Games range beyond party politics. If a team from Australia travels to Moscow it could be interpreted as yet another example where personal satisfaction has overshadowed national interest. More accurately, I believe, it will be a lost opportunity to clearly demonstrate to the Soviet people that the world condemns the Kremlin leaders. Consideration of the effect of an Olympic boycott is vital to any decision.

I would like to explain to the House the reasons why I have concluded that such a measure will be successful. When the all-party joint house sub-committee was examining human rights in the Soviet Union, we repeatedly asked witnesses: ‘What effect will the deliberations and findings of this Parliamentary committee have on the Soviet authorities?’ More particularly we asked: ‘Would the Committee’s work adversely prejudice in any way those Soviet citizens who oppose the regime and who are seeking to monitor the Soviet Union’s failure to grant civil and political human rights to its citizens?’ Time and again we were informed that any action would give strength to those people. Witnesses stated that the Soviet authorities were sensitive to external criticism and comment. The report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence specifically referred to the position of Dr Andrei Sakharov. In 1973 the Soviets’ leading nuclear physicist came under particular pressure and was subject to much vilification because of his human rights activities. It was the Committee’s view that Dr Sakharov avoided incarceration at that time only because of the actions of the United States National Academy of Science, which threatened to cut off all exchange of scientific information to the USSR. Dr Sakharov was not then arrested, although he continued to be pressured by the KGB and other Soviet authorities. I would like to quote the words of Andrei Sakharov in 1975 when he was talking on the subject of immigration and Western pressure. He said this:

Each case of groundless refusal of permission to emigrate, of persecution, repression, provocation or trial, is a great misfortune in human terms. The attention of world public opinion to every such event is critical . . .

The Committee also considered what action Australia should take in relation to a case for a boycott of the Games. It was our view that it would be foolish to seek a change of venue unless- I emphasise ‘unless’- many countries were to make similar moves. The all-party Joint Committee also stated:

More importantly, the 1980 Olympic Games will give the Soviet Government an opportunity to show a more lenient attitude in human rights matters and an opportunity to relax the severe restrictions on travel within the Soviet Union. It remains to be seen how the Soviet Union will make use of these opportunities.

It was our hope that the Soviet Union would use the Games to demonstrate its oft quoted belief in human rights by releasing its human rights prisoners or by allowing Refuseniks to emigrate. What concerns us greatly was the possibility of harsh repressive measures against Soviet dissidents and their removal from areas where contact may have been possible with overseas visitors. This is, in fact, what is happening. I will refer to that shortly. The Committee did sound a clear warning, and again I quote from the report:

However the Committee, recollecting that the Berlin Olympic Games in 1936 were followed by Nazi acts of aggression and genocide, is not optimistic that the Moscow Olympic Games will in themselves bring about any substantial extension of human rights in the Soviet Union.

Perhaps it is timely to remind the House that that is a report from a committee on which all parties and both Houses were represented. It is a report which I recommend should be re-read at this time. Our premonition proved correct. I believe the Committee would now add a further criticism to the lengthy list of indictments against the Soviet Union. The removal of Dr Sakharov to exile in Gorkey is the most recent example of the contempt which the Soviet Union holds for basic human and civil rights.

I turn now to the proof that the Soviet Union is using the Games for its own propaganda purposes. Australian Olympic athletes and officials will be used as pawns in that propaganda exercise. May I quote from the official Soviet publication, the handbook for party activists which has been referred to before. It states:

It is understood that, in the Olympic Games, as in all major social events, international relations make their imprint, demonstrating the arrangement of political and class forces in the world arena, the presence in the world of two opposed systems- capitalism, living out its last years, and socialism, growing and strengthening with every day.

It continues:

The forces of reaction are trying to exploit the Olympic Movement and Games in the interests of the exploiting classes, for the goals of business and commerce, as propaganda for the bourgeois way of life, capitalist construction and its ideology, and for the distraction of youth from the political and class struggle.

Our athletes and officials should be aware that they will be part of the so-called forces of reaction trying to exploit the Olympic movement if they do not heed the advice of the Government and stay away from Moscow.

I return to consideration of the effect of a boycott. Robert Kaiser, a reporter of the Washington

Post and that newspaper’s Moscow correspondent from 1971 to 1974, has written:

No other non-military move could so directly challenge the Soviet leadership or so startle the Soviet public as a boycott of the Games.

He also made the point that history following the Bolshevik revolution clearly indicates that the Soviet authorities have continually searched for legitimacy. The Soviet system has not once been tested in a democratic election. A regime founded on revolution is suspicious of criticism and wary of dissent. The insecurity of the USSR has been clearly exemplified in the suppression of its own people and in areas like the Baltic states. This insecurity is heightened by an aged leadership and is, I believe, one element of the rationale behind many of the Soviet Government’s actions within and outside its boundaries. Because of the insecurity the Soviet regime has totally orchestrated the propaganda surrounding the Moscow Games, propaganda aimed at its own citizens and those of other countries, particularly athletes, games officials and visitors who may travel to the USSR for the Olympics.

Another piece of evidence supporting my argument that the boycott will be the most effective means of international condemnation comes from an article by Dr Peter Reddaway in the Canberra Times of 1 1 February last. Honourable members will be aware that Dr Reddaway is a respected authority on Soviet affairs with unchallengable networks within the USSR and outside. He stated:

While protests and sanctions can seem ineffective when made, they usually have a salutary impact in due course, providing they are strong and persistent.

Dr Reddaway went on to say: the Soviet regime both needs the West economically, and, Afghanistan notwithstanding, craves international respectability and prestige.

He concluded his article by referring to the views of some commentators that President Carter’s stated support for human rights had made little impact on the United Soviet Socialist Republic. It is the view of Dr Reddaway that nothing could be further from the truth. It is interesting to note his final comment. He said:

The same process has now begun again. Thus many governments and numerous national and international organisations-scientific, literary, religious, ethnic, humanitarian, libertarian, cultural and medical- face an urgent new challenge.

I would suggest that honourable members opposite refer to page 24 of yesterday’s Hansard where the Prime Minister mentioned several of the measures which in fact come into those categories which Dr Reddaway has identified as capable of influencing the people in the Soviet

Union. As I said earlier, the opinions of Dr Reddaway are widely respected and his statement should be carefully considered.

I conclude by referring to one point. The debate on the boycott of the Olympic Games must be within the context of the security of this country and world peace. A boycott by a significant number of countries could have the most profound effect on the Soviets. We should not pass up that opportunity. We have a responsibility to maintain our stand until world opinion has been crystallised. If it is still the view of those countries which have to date asked their National Olympic committees not to attend the Games, Australia should then proceed to work, as the Prime Minister has already announced, on behalf of our athletes to conduct world championships outside the USSR.

I refer now to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). I have no doubt that everybody on this side of the House would agree with clause (6), which relates to the limitation of arms and an uncontrolled arms race. In relation to clause (7), which is on the subject of the effect of problems which may occur in Australia’s own region, I have no doubt again that we would agree with that. As to clause (8), which talks about diplomatic initiatives directed at convening an international conference, I have no doubt that we would agree with that. But we would reject clause (9). I could go on to talk about a lot of other things, including whether we should be recognising the regime of Pol Pot. I agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) that we should no longer be recognising his regime. We could talk about the Middle East and the security of Israel. We could talk about the Soviet occupation and build up of arms in the territories north of Japan, but they are not relevant to the urgency of the debate which is contained in the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Viner). I support that motion without qualification.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– One common feature runs through this debate and it ought to be noted. It is that every speaker from either side of the House has condemned the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. If that is the lowest common denominator that marks this debate it means that what this debate is about is the level of response and the most appropriate response which this Parliament believes it should make as a guide for the people of Australia in registering its protest against Soviet aggression. The differences between the Government and the Opposition have been highlighted by the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr

Malcolm Fraser) to the House last night and the support he has received from speakers from the Government side of the House. His case rests upon three presumptions. These are, first of all, that Afghanistan was a non-aligned country- to use the erudite words of the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), it is a tiny, non-aligned country. The second presumption of the Prime Minister- this is where the Opposition joins issue with the Government- is that this is the gravest crisis since 1945 because it represents essentially the downward thrust of the Soviet Union to the oil supplies of the West. Finally, he regards the most significant weapon available to the Australian Government as being an Olympic Games ban.

Let me deal with each of those presumptions. On the first matter- that is, that Afghanistan was a tiny, non-aligned country- the Prime Minister is demonstrably wrong, historically wrong, when he portrays Afghanistan in that role. What is the history of Afghanistan and its relations with the Soviet Union? Whether all members of this House like it or not, the Soviet Union is one of the two great world powers.

Mr Cotter:

– That does not give it the right to move into another country.

Mr HOLDING:

– It does not give any world power the right to do that. The United States of America and the Soviet Union have no right to transgress the borders of their neighbours. There is no argument about that. But we have to look at the history of this situation. The fact is that there was a treaty of friendship dating back to 1920. Afghanistan was the first country in the world to recognise a Soviet, government. There was a further treaty of friendship in 1978. It is interesting to note that when John Foster Dulles, as part of his view of containing the Soviet Union, was putting his ring of bases around the world he included Iran and Pakistan in regard to that part of the world but he did not include Afghanistan. Even at that stage he regarded that nation as being within the Soviet orb of influence. In 1978 a treaty of friendship which was to last for 20 years was signed by a Marxist-Leninist government in Afghanistan. The then Prime Minister of Afghanistan said that it could mean the presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan if Kabul required it. The defence of the Soviet Union for its aggression in Afghanistan is that it was required under that treaty to put troops into Afghanistan and that is what it did. I do not accept that. In saying that I do not accept it I am acting in accordance with the history of the Australian Labor Party. We did not accept that sort of argument by supporters of this Government to justify America’s involvement in Vietnam. We did not accept it then for the American Government ‘s involvement in Vietnam and we do not accept it now for the Russian aggression in Afghanistan.

Why is it that this tiny, non-aligned nation was described- correctly so- by a presidential adviser in 1978 as little more than a Soviet satellite? Does anybody seriously pretend that the Americans did not know that the Russians had over 5,000 advisers in Afghanistan, with the consent and approval and at the request of the Afghanistan Government, and that 3,000 of those advisers were attached to paramilitary units? Of course they knew. I do not wonder that the Australian Government did not know because the Australian Government has really never had any knowledge of Afghanistan. It has never been interested in Afghanistan. We have never even maintained a full time embassy there. Yet suddenly it has become a useful political ploy for this Prime Minister and for some of those honourable gentlemen opposite who historically have always been very anxious to belt the communist can.

Mr Cotter:

– And you are defending it.

Mr HOLDING:

– No, I am defending the right of the people of Australia to know the truth from the Government of Australia, and they are not getting the truth from the Government. It is historically incorrect, and you are lying to the people of Australia when you describe that situation as being one of a tiny non-aligned country that has suddenly become the subject of aggression from the Soviet Union.

Mr Cotter:

– Who is lying?

Mr HOLDING:

– You are lying if you maintain that position.

Mr Cotter:

– I object, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask that that remark be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! The honourable member has asked for a withdrawal.

Mr HOLDING:

– I said that the honourable gentleman is lying if he maintains that position. I did not say he was lying. I said he was lying if he maintained that position.

Mr Cotter:

– He said that I was lying, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I ask for that to be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member has asked for a withdrawal. I think it may be easier -

Mr HOLDING:

– I am not going to withdraw. What I said was that the honourable gentleman was lying if he maintained that position. It is a matter for him.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Melbourne Ports is making a very good speech. Time is ticking by. I suggest that it is easier to withdraw.

Mr HOLDING:

– To conserve my time I will withdraw. Let us look at the second argument of the Prime Minister, which was followed up by the Minister for Defence, whose speeches I enjoy because he is always colourful, always forceful, even if he is not always logical. The honourable gentleman brought in a map and said: ‘You only have to look at it. This map shows the downward thrust, the strategic position by which the oil supplies of the West can be threatened ‘. How is it that the Minister for Defence does not know what the Prime Minister obviously chooses to ignore, or perhaps does not know? In 1978 the Soviet Union exported one million barrels of oil a day to the West. That resulted in payments of more than $5 billion a year in hard currency to the Soviet Union, or more than 40 per cent of its hard currency for merchandise exports.

If the Soviet Union wishes to embarrass the West by restricting its oil supplies, the first thing it has to do- it is very simple- is to say: ‘We are not going to export any oil.’ It has never been suggested, either by the Western countries that acquire the oil or by the Soviet Union, that that situation is likely to occur. One has to assess this situation in terms of history. Honourable gentlemen opposite say that the oil supplies of the West are threatened, but they should look at the map presented by the Minister for Defence. They will find that Iran, which is a major source of supply for the West’s oil, shares a common border with the Soviet Union. Even our own Minister for Defence would have to concede that the Soviet Union does not need to tie up 80,000 troops in Afghanistan if what it is about is a downward thrust across the border in order to choke the West’s oil supplies. That is the historic reality of the situation. That view, although it finds currency amongst honourable gentlemen opposite, does not find currency among many of the statesmen of the West. It does not find currency with a Mr Heath, a former conservative Prime Minister of England. It does not find currency with Kurt Waldheim, the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations. It does not find currency with those who are trying to analyse objectively the real nature of the threat to the West and assess what are the proper and appropriate levels of response. I do not accept that view, and there is no evidence to suggest it in any statements made by the Soviet Union.

Honourable members opposite can say that they reject everything the Soviet Union says, and I suppose that is the position. But what it has said in terms of its invasion of Afghanistan is that it has gone in there under a treaty for the purpose of securing a limited objective, that is, to secure the position of a government which is a MarxistLeninist government. There is nothing new about that. It has done that on many other occasions, and it was no more right then than it is now. When the Soviet Union did the same thing in Poland and Czechoslovakia the same arguments were produced. It was part of a downward thrust to the Mediterranean. That view was not supported by Waldheim, who was then a Minister for External Affairs, and he was proved correct historically. It is very important in analysing these situations not to allow our own biases and our own perspectives to colour our judgment.

Mr Cotter:

– So we walk away and accept it? What a lot of rot.

Mr HOLDING:

– Let me put this to the honourable gentleman, if he wants to be so bellicose. I listened with interest, when I heard the Prime Minister, who was asked about the level of response, say that he was going to increase surveillance in the Indian Ocean. He has not heard his Minister for Defence say how difficult it is to exercise surveillance over our own extended coastline. We have to hire out the job to private enterprise. We cannot even catch Japanese poachers on the Barrier Reef. That is the historic reality. But suddenly we are going to increase our surveillance in the Indian Ocean.

Mr Shipton:

– What do you want us to do? Tell us what you want.

Mr HOLDING:

– The first thing I would like the honourable gentleman to do is to examine the reality of the situation in which he finds himself. A lot of nonsense comes from honourable gentlemen opposite. To listen to the Prime Minister one would think he was about to fight the 1914-18 war all over again, with one battle ship or one aircraft carrier. If we are talking about a confrontation in this part of the world between the United States of America and the Soviet Union, what we are talking about is nuclear war. We should understand that. The Americans themselves and President Carter understand that there is no other way, given the short lines of communication of the Soviet Union and the extended lines of communication of the Americans. They would have to use tactical nuclear weapons. How do we contain that? Honourable gentlemen opposite talk about the right to life.

When they talk about warfare they are not talking about going back to the . 303 rifle and the bayonet, they are talking about the use of nuclear weapons and about the potential for nuclear holocaust. That is the reality, and I believe it is more important that that situation be assessed with some degree of realism. It has not as yet been assessed with any degree of realism.

The last thing on which I want to touch quickly is the question of the Government’s massive response: ‘No, we will not ban trade. ‘ The Russian troops can bounce around the Khyber Pass in an Afghan winter, wrapped up in winter woollies provided by some of the honourable gentlemen opposite. Of course wool is a tactical weapon, and everybody knows it, as well as the equipment we are supplying. But the Government’s position is this: ‘We will not interfere with trade. It is culture that we have to interfere with. ‘

Mr Scholes:

– Blood stained roubles.

Mr HOLDING:

-‘ We will accept the roubles, but is very important that the kids do not get themselves contaminated by being involved in the Olympic Games.’ Let me put to the House one proposition that has not yet been put. In any sort of crisis it is important in making an evaluation of the extent of that crisis that we adhere to our own views of the way in which governments operate in a democracy. It is time it was pointed out to this Government that for the first time in our history it is saying to Olympic contestants: Your right to participate in an Olympiad is not going to be determined by your sporting qualifications or the relevant criteria of international sport. It will be determined by the particular foreign policy objectives of the government of the day.’ That in my view is not a position that we should lightly move to because if we do so what we are saying is that the whole future of the Olympic movement is in jeopardy. The Government is prepared to subvert those objectives. It might say that they are worthless, but it is prepared to subvert them to its own limited view of a cold war situation. That might be all right for a bellicose Prime Minister trying to restore his reputation with an electorate that has found that his economic policies are false and are failing, but for the people of Australia it offers no hope, no promise. When we are playing around with nuclear weapons, I ask honourable gentlemen opposite to think about the implications of what they are doing.

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

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

-The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is a travesty. We have just heard the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) and other honourable members say that it is an act of blatant aggression. It has been agreed by the Socialist International that the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan has violated international law as well as the sovereignty and the right of self-determination of Afghanistan. The Socialist International condemns the intervention of the Soviet armed forces in Afghanistan and calls upon the Soviet Union to withdraw all of its troops from that country. This is exactly what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has been saying and it is the line which this Government has followed.

It certainly was not the line that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) followed originally. His opening remarks in this debate differed substantially from those of members of his own party who followed him in that he made some disgraceful comments about the Prime Minister of Australia and the President of the United States which Opposition members did not reiterate. They must have realised that he was the same snivelling Bill trying to gain a cheap political point. So the tone of speeches of members of the Opposition differs from the tone of the opening remarks of their Leader. In fact, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) made a far more temperate speech than his leader. I think that in some way he must realise the seriousness of the Soviet thrust. Apart from introducing a series of amendments, which I do not support, the honourable member for Adelaide showed some understanding of the situation.

This downward thrust by the Soviet Union was described by the Prime Minister as the most dangerous international crisis since World War II. I ask honourable members to recall what happened in 1936 and what followed, when there was a similar set-up of Olympic Games and a similar aim at world domination by nazi Germany. I hope to say something about that later. It has been Soviet policy since the time of the czars to push towards the warm waters. They have pushed towards the Indian Ocean which, let us remember, washes the shores of Western Australia and Africa. It has been realised for many years that it has been the Soviet’s intention to divide the free Western world. The Soviet’s backing of revolutionaries, terrorists and murderers in Africa is designed to turn Rhodesia into a controllable Marxist state. These actions are aimed at the Cape of Good Hope in an endeavour to push the South Africans into the sea. That has been Soviet policy down through the ages as well as, of course, trying to succeed in getting to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean. That course which, as I have said would involve going through Africa, would be at best long and hard, and the Soviets know it. I only hope that we and other Western countries realise this before it is too late.

I return to the question of Afghanistan where the situation, under the circumstances, probably appeared a lot easier to the Soviet Union. The Soviets probably did not read of the battles that the Brits had all through the Khyber Pass as they endeavoured to put their flag in the right place. They never beat the Afghans. However, the Russians may succeed because of their superior technology, logistics and their general upgrading of weaponry. The Labor line, from which Opposition members who have spoken today have deviated slightly, of not mixing sport with politics, was clearly stated- I heard it said- by a gentleman with the name of Halfpenny. He categorically stated just that on a recent radio program.

Mr Holding:

– He is not a member of the Labor Party.

Mr CALDER:

-He stated the Labor Party policy. You both have the same ideals. The socialist and the communist and the Labor Party manifestos contain the same words. The Labor Leader seemed much more comfortable when he was defending the Soviet’s invasion, when he was trying to justify the Soviet’s downward thrust. He seemed comfortable when speaking on this matter in the House yesterday. So what do we have? We have the Labor Party seeking to convince the Australian people about that line which I heard spoken by that non-Labor Party member, a well known leftist who espouses the same policies as the Labor Party- that sport and politics should be kept apart, that they do not mix.

Mr Lucock:

– When it suits them.

Mr CALDER:

– Yes, that has been the line. But of course sport and politics mix and they have had to be mixed down through the years. We all know that they have been mixed and the Labor Party knows it too. I wish to make a few other points. What Australians really have to realise is that the consequence of an Australian team going to the Moscow Olympics or any Western Olympic team competing at the Moscow Olympics will be the undermining of President Carter’s stance and Prime Minister Margaret

Thatcher’s call and the call of the Prime Minister of Australia for a united resolve to boycott the Games. I am certain that if those who say that they are going to boycott the Games do so, it will be the greatest deterrent, short of endeavouring to stop the Soviet Union with force of arms, that the Soviets have ever had placed before them. I have referred to the 1939 situation and what happened afterwards. We certainly do not want that again, or anything like it.

This is a peaceful way of showing the Soviets that we will not be used up by them in their propaganda machine. To say that sports and politics do not mix is utter nonsense. We heard from the last speaker, and many others, the story about Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan wearing Australian woollen garments. They may be doing so. They may well not be, because only 10 per cent of the wool that the Soviet Union uses is imported from Australia. Moreover, wool is not a strategic material as defined by the Coordinating Committee on Exports of Technology to Communist Countries which is, after all, not dominated by Australia. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries, with Japan, decide what shall be considered strategic materials, so to accuse this Government of complicity in that regard is nonsense.

The grain ban is intended to support President Carter’s stance, one which is correct. Numerous people have endorsed a statement by the incoming Canadian Prime Minister. He has shown such tremendous strength of character as to say that he would support an embargo if it promised to be successful, or was imposed by a lot of other people also. If everyone sat back and did that sort of thing where would we be? That is what has happened to the world. It is why the Soviets are where they are today. Everyone has sat back and done nothing about them, endeavouring to put nothing in their way. Now it is time to call a halt to the well-known Soviet tactics of thrust and then detente, thrust and then detente, thrust and then detente; it goes on and on. We go along with it, but at some time or other a halt has to be called. Someone has to stand and say ‘enough’, not merely, ‘If it is not going to be successful we will not be in it.’ What sort of gutless people are those who do that. They are not such people as those who, in1 939, stood up to the Nazis, people without whom these Olympics would not be possible. Without their efforts those who are now howling about not being able to go would not even be here or have a chance to go to the Olympics.

Only recently I heard a broadcast of an interview with five or six of these people. They all said that they had been training for three or four years and were going to lose the benefit of that training. It was going to be a tremendous blow to them. I noted as they went on that, one after another, they spoke only of themselves. There was no thought of the Australian nation or of trying to stop the Soviets. It was what that person, that athlete, was going to miss by not attending the Olympics.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It sounds like the wheat growers.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is what the wool growers say.

Mr CALDER:

– If we hark back to 1939 we remember when so many people went away to fight so that people like you, who make such ridiculous remarks, could be here, could live in this world. I am talking about the sacrifices of Ross Gregory and other cricketers and young men who died so that the rest of you very poor types of people could live in this world. That is dead right. It is time that the fellows who spoke on the program to which I have referred were prepared to make some sort of sacrifice to ensure that Australia has a chance to stop the downward thrust of the Soviets- not of China, to which reference was made yesterday by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). It is the Soviets who have embarked upon a downward thrust and we must prevent it.

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

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Speaking on behalf of the ‘poor types’ on this side of the House I say that if the honourable member wants to know who the gutless people are it is those who closed their eyes to the rape of Timor by Indonesia. That includes, with but a few honourable exceptions, the great majority of the people on the other side of the chamber.

Over this debate hangs the cloud of the Government’s unbelievable pusillanimity over Timor. How on earth can anybody place any credence on anything the Government says about foreign policy, human rights, sovereignty or selfdetermination when, 400 miles from Darwin, a tiny country is raped, a community is destroyed, and those actions have been aided and abetted by it at every stage. The Government closed down the radio and it refused visas. Two leaders from West Papua who sought a refuge in the world ended up in Sweden. If there is anything more gutless than this Government’s action in the face of that situation I have yet to see it. No matter how much the Government talks, no matter what morality or ethics it might espouse concerning the mountains of north Afghanistan, nobody will believe it. It has no credence whatsoever.

For 24V& years I have listened in this Parliament to cant, hypocrisy and humbug, in the guise of foreign policy, from those who support the present Government. On every single issue that comes up the same thing happens. I believe that I speak on behalf of honourable members on this side of the chamber, and on behalf of most people in Australia, when I say that the real issue in human affairs is the sanctity of human life, the sovereignty of independent peoples and the paramountcy of human rights. We have to face this issue, not in a defence of United States policy or that of the Soviet Union but in an attempt to foster those aims in the face of the present threat.

I hope that my position, and that of my friends on this side of the chamber, is quite clear. None of us is in favour of the military aggression by the Russians in Afghanistan. War is man’s greatest folly. Military aggression is intolerable. In this instance Australia is not threatened. The Russian presence in the Indian Ocean is minimal, and neither the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics nor the United States of America, judged on the record of the last 30 years, is capable of giving moral leadership in world affairs on human rights and the protection of independent countries.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has a most unbelievable attitude to human and international affairs. We are not faced with the greatest threat since 1945. Those of my age group have lived through a lot of them. I recall that upon the outbreak of the Korean War a shiver ran around the world. One said, ‘Perhaps it is on again. ‘ By the time China joined the conflict we were so close to the outbreak of the Third World War that the whole world lived in fear. Again, the Berlin crisis created much greater tensions. It brought the antagonists eyeball to eyeball in East and West Germany and above the airfields of Europe. The outbreak of another world war was as close as a touch away. The same thing happened over the Suez Canal. I think it was Krushchev who said, ‘We will rain rockets on you if you don ‘t get out ‘.

Mr Graham:

– ‘We will bury you’.

Mr BRYANT:

– He said that later too. Every Middle East crisis has produced a greater confrontation than has the situation in Afghanistan. I cite the Cuban crisis and even the recent crises in China and Vietnam. The Prime Minister, of course, will never grow up. He is the eternal boy scout, one might say, in international affairs, Strangely enough, at a time such as this we have B52 aircraft flying over Cape York. Ten or 12 years ago B47 aircraft were flying around Australia. We are going to update our defence. The next time there is a State election in Western Australia we will put more ships there which will turn up three years later. We have even heard honourable members opposite talking about a call-up. A call-up for what? I say here emphatically, as I said 20 years ago with regard to Berlin, that Afghanistan is not worth a drop of Australian blood, and I will not give my sanction in any way to Australia’s involvement in a war about it.

What is the Prime Minister’s attitude? First of all, it is hypocritical. His attitude with regard to Indonesia and Timor is totally different from his attitude to Afghanistan or to the Baltic states. He is totally inconsistent. How on earth can anybody in a logical, commonsense and mature society such as Australia tolerate such people leading the nation? On the one hand, they want to boycott the Olympic Games. On the other hand, they want to ensure that their wool, wheat and rutile get safely into the ports of the Soviet Union. The facts are, of course, that confronted with the situation between Indonesia and Timor our attitude could be decisive. If Australia were to say: ‘Do not recognise the Indonesian takeover’, the Portuguese would stand firm. If the Portuguese were to stand firm, the rest of the European community would front up; and if it did that it would hold ground at the United Nations. I can give honourable members a personal assurance, from having talked to people about the situation, that people in Britain are saying: ‘But what’ about Australia? We look to you in this. It is at your back door. We hardly know where the place is’. We let the Timorese down; we let the whole international community down.

Of course, the Prime Minister’s exercise is politically gauche. He went off to what we might call the safe seats to campaign on this issue. He was talking to his friends and brothers in Europe and America. Why did he not try to convince the Africans? On the International Olympic Committee there are 50 African votes, and a little while ago he was parading around Africa trying to prevent the making of errors with regard to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, although he did not do so. Worst of all, his attitude to any cold analysis is materialist and cynical. I say this: It is all or nothing. The Olympic Games are insignificant in world affairs. It is nonsense to talk about the 1936 Olympic Games having turned Hitler loose on the world. What rubbish!

Mr Hurford:

– It would not have made any difference.

Mr BRYANT:

-That is right; it is absolute rot. The facts are that in a global context the Olympic Games are a symbol, an important social event, but they have nothing to do with issues. If we mean business, it should be all or nothing. We ought to apply the sort of sanctions which were applied to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Of course, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is a little country of six million people- 250,000 whites- in the heart of southern Africa. It is easy to deal with them. When it comes to Russia we will not behave in that way. We will continue to sell our wheat, our wool and so on.

Like every other international debate this one is clouded with what I call the ogre syndrome. We all have it. There are permanent villains. On one side of the fence the communists are ready to descend upon us every election year. It used to be the downward thrust of the Chinese, who are now friends with everybody. I will say for the Russians that at least they have made us friendly with the Chinese. I did not think that could be achieved, because only six or seven years ago even you, Mr Deputy Speaker- a liberalminded, broad-minded, intelligent and understanding person-did not know that the Chinese were there. On the other side of the fencesometimes on my side- there is a sort of obsession about United States imperialism. Of course, then there is a rising ogre. I am afraid that even I might subscribe to this one. I refer to the rising tide of fundamental Islamism.

The only cheerful note I have heard was the announcement on the news this morning that the European Foreign Ministers are giving consideration to some form of guaranteed neutrality and independence for a nation such as Afghanistan. If we can foster that attitude we will have made a lot of progress, and I think it is our only hope. How do we do it? Since I attended the 33rd United Nations General Assembly I have been convinced that somehow we have to generate a world democratic front. In the world at large not all that many countries are totally free and democratic. Australia is listed amongst them as probably one of the most free. My friend the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) incorporated in Hansard in June 1978 a list of 20 countries which are fully free and another 20 which come near to it. I am not too sure that it is dead accurate across the board, but it was prepared by Freedom House in the United States. I suppose we can say that their governments may be changed by free action at the ballot box and without violence. Of course, the list consists of some of the most powerful and most populous countries, including India, the United States and Japan. It includes countries such as Australia and the Western European countries, some of which are of great significance in the world at large. There are the tiny dots in the Caribbean- the Bahamas, Barbados, Costa Rica and so on- and one or two spots in Latin America, including Venezuela. In Africa there are countries such as Botswana. I hope that Zimbabwe-Rhodesia may be included, but I have some doubts as to how it will prosper. Of course, there is Japan.

Somehow we have to break the blocs which now strangle the world’s initiatives in these matters. In the United Nations there are a number of these blocs. There is the Western European and others group, as it calls itself, which is basically a geographical and racial group linked by culture and so on. We are fringe dwellers of that group. Then there is the Eastern bloc, which is an ideological one. Then there is the African bloc, which is a racial one. Then there is the Arab bloc, which is both racial and religious. Finally, there is an overall grouping- the underdeveloped countries, the group of 77, the Third World, call it what we will- which is a kind of economic group. They are the major groupings as I see them.

Mr Yates:

– What about the Commonwealth?

Mr BRYANT:

– It does not come together in that way at the United Nations and in international forums.

Mr Yates:

– The Commonwealth!

Mr BRYANT:

– I will write the honourable member a letter about it. He knows as much about it as I do. He knows that that will not be the way it works at the United Nations. Those are the groups and somehow we have to break across them. We have to generate amongst the free and independent nations, the ones with democratic concepts, some kind of community of spirit whereby we say: ‘You do not do that’, whether we say it to the Russians crossing the border, to Libya going into Chad or to Vietnam going into Kampuchea and staying there. I believe that that is the only hope we have. In all of this the Olympic Games are a mere incident. It is a tragic event that has occurred in Afghanistan. I think the Russians are totally wrong not only in their strategy but also in their concepts and their morality; and they are not the only ones who are capable of it. I remind honourable members opposite that the Russian presence in the Indian

Ocean now is probably weaker and less significant than it was 10 years ago. Ten years ago America and Australia were involved in Vietnam. Ten years ago most of the African littoral states had a close association with the Russians or were developing it. Egypt was very friendly with Russia. That has all gone. In fact I think that Russia has made a serious strategic error. I am inclined to ask at this stage, before I sit down, what kind of Government this is. We still recognise the Pol Pot regime. We still recognised the Uganda regime of Amin no matter what it did. Who makes our policies? The oil ministers make our economic policy, the United States President makes our foreign policy and our pockets make our ethics. In a screen version of the history of slavery I saw, I think it was Burke saying to Pitt or Pitt saying to Wilberforce- one of these people- when he was a bit broken-hearted at the result of a vote: ‘Ah yes, they speak from thier hearts but they vote with their property’. That is the Liberal Party and the National Country Party of Australia in essence.

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

– I was interested in what the honourable member for Willis (Mr Bryant), who has just resumed his seat, had to say about the impact of the Olympic Games in world affairs. If I heard him correctly I thought he said that the Olympic Games are insignificant in world affairs. That statement was greeted by a number of ‘hear hears’ from honourable members on the Opposition side of the House. He denigrated the impact that a boycott of the Olympic Games would have on the Soviet Union. That again was greeted with a number of ‘hear hears’ from the Labor side of the House. In that respect, of course, he even disagrees with his own Leader who has said that an effective boycott, however that might be defined, would be an important step. I understood that that was the point that a number of honourable members of the Opposition had put forward. I suggest that even if a boycott may not have a great impact on world affairs- that is a proposition I would dispute, but let us accept that- it would have a great impact on many people within the Soviet Union. The Government of the Soviet Union can hide the fact that certain other measures are being taken against the Soviet Union and it could hide the fact that certain trade boycotts were being placed on the Soviet Union because no one in the Soviet Union would know from where the wheat comes from which the flour is made to bake the bread which the Soviet people eat. If that is replaced by purchasing it from another country it makes no impact on the public of the Soviet Union.

Of course, we all know that there is not exactly a free Press in the Soviet Union so the people are not likely to read about that situation from any investigative journalism that might otherwise be present in that country. So, what can make some sort of impact on the consciousness of the people of the Soviet Union? I suggest that a boycott of the Olympic Games within the Soviet Union by a significant number of countries would do just that because many people within the Soviet Union will go along to watch many of the events. I assume that the Soviet television will be covering the events. People will want to know why certain countries are not present. If certain regular competing countries at the Olympic Games such as Australia, which has been represented at all the modern Olympics since their inception, are not present, that will raise questions in the minds of many Soviet citizens with which their Government will have to deal. So I suggest that a boycott of the Olympic Games is probably the most effective measure that we could take which would get some message, at least, through to the Soviet people themselves that the rest of the world is not exactly applauding the invasion of Afghanistan by the armed forces of the Soviet Union.

Now let me return to the text of the motion that was moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) following the address to the House by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I think it is worth commenting on the points that were raised in this motion because many of them have been forgotten in the debate. They have been forgotten particularly by honourable members opposite as they have been speaking. The motion by the Leader of the House- I will read the first part in full- states:

That this House-

Condemns the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union as a gross violation of the United Nations Chaner and of Afghanistan’s non-aligned status; as involving acts of aggression and tyranny; as having a critically destabilizing effect on the region; and as potentially the gravest threat to international peace and security since 1945.

I would like to hear honourable members opposite argue against that proposition. They have not really come to grips with the terms of the motion itself. The motion goes on to make a number of other points which I will summarise. It notes that a significant majority of world opinion, including Islamic opinion, has viewed the invasion with grave concern. It calls for the immediate unconditional and total withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. It urges all independent-minded nations to take action separately or in concert to register with the Government and people of the Soviet Union their abhorrence of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and finally it urges the provision of humanitarian relief assistance to alleviate the hardships of the Afghan refugees in co-ordination with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Now I would like to return to the matter of the Olympic Games because, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, the Soviet Union has made the Olympic Games a matter of political propaganda. In the official handbook circulated to communist party activists in the Soviet Union the Games in Moscow have been described as:

  1. . convincing proof of the universal recognition of the historical importance and correctness of the course of our country’s foreign policy, the vast contribution of the Soviet Union to the struggle for peace.

Now can we go along with that sort of concept of the Olympic Games? Can we accept that? The theory of the Olympic Games is that a city is selected as the site for the Games, not really a country. The youth of the world- there are some older athletes too, of course- gather to compete every four years. The Soviet Union has made the holding of the Olympic Games in its capital city a major point of party political and ideological propaganda. We should take note of that and ensure that it does not gain any advantage from it. So it seems to me rather weak for many people to protest that they want Australian athletes to go to the Olympic Games not in any recognition of the Soviet Union or its policies but merely to participate in an international sporting event as individuals representing Australian amateur athletes. Certainly, that is not the way it will be presented by the Government of the Soviet Union to its own people. It will be presented by the Government of the Soviet Union to its own people as a vindication of the correctness of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and that foreign policy most recently has included the overt invasion of Afghanistan. So that is what we are protesting about. That is why we believe that a boycott of the Olympic Games can be the most significant single act which will bring home to the Soviet Union and to its people the abhorrence felt by many people around the world and by the vast majority of countries around the world, at the action of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Let us look at the attitude of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) interestingly enough in his speech stated:

From the very beginning, we have said that the Opposition would support effective international responses, be they embargoes, boycotts or whatever.

The Opposition would support effective international responses. But it seems that in this respect the Leader of the Opposition takes the attitude that other countries have got to take the lead. His attitude is that when a significant number of countries agree to a boycott of the Games then Australia will come in on it. For a leader of what purports to be a radical, reformist party it is a most conservative attitude to take. It is conservative not in any constructive sense but in a very puny sense and one which indicates some timorousness in taking part in international affairs. I would have thought that that was a disgraceful attitude for the Leader of the Opposition to take.

We have not heard from the Leader of the Opposition, or from any other speakers opposite, just what they would propose to do. I challenge members of the Opposition to come forward with their proposals as to how, if they were in government, they would express their opposition to the actions of the Soviet Union. Just what measures would they take? That has not been spelt out by the Leader of the Opposition or by anyone who has followed him in this debate. All the Leader of the Opposition can do is to bleat about the Government’s actions and, indeed, to denigrate the journalists who have reported the Government’s actions. He referred to journalists travelling with the Prime Minister as being gullible. I must say that I have had my own objections to the way in which some journalists have presented the Prime Minister’s views. I certainly would not have accused them of being all that favourable to what the Prime Minister has said. But somehow or other the Leader of the Opposition, because the journalists have not completely condemned the Prime Minister, says that they are being gullible. I was also interested in a rather incredible speech that was made subsequently in the debate by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). He asked:

What pan should Australia play in the crisis we now call -

I repeat- ‘the crisis we now call’- the intervention by the Soviet Union into Afghanistan?

I am not quite sure about his choice of words there. I wonder why he chose those words. I will read his question again:

What part should Australia play in the crisis we now call the intervention by the Soviet Union into Afghanistan?

Anyway, despite the wording, it is quite a good question. What part should we play? I have read and reread his speech. I cannot find one sentence suggesting what part Australia should play. That seems to be the theme of the Opposition’s approach to this whole question. The honourable member for Port Adelaide went on to say:

The people in the community are confused because of the publicity that has been given to this affair by our newspapers which can be described in some instances only as vulgar.

There is another slap at the journalists. I wonder whether he could tell us which of the articles he found vulgar. I myself find some articles vulgar from time to time, but it would be very interesting in respect of this issue and in the context of the specific point which the honourable member for Port Adelaide was putting forward, to find out just which articles he found to have that quality. He made a number of very spurious points. He stated:

The fact that we have poor relations with our region is very much a result of the European and North American mentality that is manifest in this Government.

I honestly cannot see what point he was seeking to make by making such a statement. I have recently visited South-East Asia, where I found that member countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations are very appreciative of the relationships that are developing with Australia. They have disagreements with some of our policies, particularly our trading policies, and they make no secret of that, but they are very happy with the wide-ranging contacts that they have with Australia and the way in which we are developing an understanding of what they are on about. Indeed, when I was in Malaysia, as an Islamic country it was terribly concerned about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The people of Malaysia, I am sure, would not share the sorts of statements that we find are now coming from members of the Opposition on the other side of this House. It is rather incredible. I am sure that our ASEAN neighbours would find the statements that are emanating from the opposite side of the House to be rather incredible.

What really is the Opposition saying to us? Is it saying that we should not have a boycott of the Olympic Games? If that is what it means let it say it quite clearly. If it says that we should have a boycott of the Olympic Games, then what is it prepared to do to bring about that boycott? It is all very well to criticise the Prime Minister for seeking to get support from other countries for that course of action, but if we are going to have an effective boycott, which the Leader of the Opposition says he would support, someone has to go out and round up the numbers. In politics surely we realise that basic fact. Someone has to take the initiative. I think that rather than denigrating the efforts of the Prime Minister, this

House ought to be supporting his efforts and providing him with every encouragement to continue to seek international support and support within Australia for an effective boycott of the Olympic Games. I support the motion which has been moved by the Leader of the House and I support the excellent statement which was made on this subject by the Prime Minister.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-Let us consider for a few minutes the much vaunted, headline-hogging junket of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to cajole President Carter to contain communism- the Kremlin model. We must be careful to define things these days, for when we talk about communists we mean the Vietnamese and the Russians but not the Chinese, or so it seems if one listens to the Prime Minister. ‘It is better to stop communism up there in Vietnam’- I am sorry, that was the last Australian Liberal Government’s venture in helping America to humiliating defeat and withdrawal. Let us start again. ‘ It is better to stop communism with mainly American blood and guts in Afghanistan rather than here in Australia ‘. What was the response of the United States to our strong support for it in confronting the Russians for daring to take another step on the same spot, for sort of running on the spot, one might say? The Russians in effect took over Afghanistan about two years ago, without a whimper from anyone. The American media response was overwhelming, according to the Age of Saturday 2 February. Let me quote it. It is headed: ‘Apathy stirs a row’. It states:

The Presidential Press secretary, Mr Jody Powell, found the American Press so apathetic about Mr Fraser ‘s meeting with President Carter here yesterday that he was reduced to blasphemy.

At a special briefing of the White House Press corps, things moved slowly until a reporter asked if it was true that Mr Fraser thought the invasion of Afghanistan was the greatest threat to everything, ever, anywhere.

Becoming angry Mr Powell replied that the Prime Minister had just held a Press Conference ‘and I hope the American networks will pay some attention to what he had to say’.

We didn’t cover it,’ a television reporter said. ‘Have you got a transcript?’

Mr Powell exploded: ‘What did he say? He didn’t cover it? “Yes.’

You didn’t cover it!’ Mr Powell cried. ‘For the love of Christ, that is absolutely absurd. I don’t have a transcript of it. Jesus! ‘

Thank you, Jody, ‘ the reporter said.

That was the American media response. After such a momentous meeting, one would have thought, and I would have innocently believed, that a new ANZAC- without the New Zealandaxis was to be forged. So we have the heroic headline ‘Pacific aid “urgent”,’ under which it is stated:

Soviets must be checked, says Fraser.

Australia would step up its aid programme to South Pacific nations to counter Soviet influence, the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said yesterday.

He warned that the ‘changed world circumstances’ -

I take it that that is a quote from Mr Fraser- posed a new threat to fragile economies in the South Pacific.

The increased aid programme was mentioned by Mr Fraser during a 75-minute meeting with President Carter at the White House.

I can quite understand that the Prime Minister would be embarrassed to acknowledge it, but it is pleasing to note that he has embraced Australian Labor Party policy of increasing aid to developing countries, particularly those in our region. Of course, the Soviet communist can has to be kicked, but I suspect the real reason for concern is the ‘changed world circumstances’that is a quote from the Prime Minister- ‘which posed a new threat to fragile economies in the South Pacific’. Rather than Soviet aggression, the ‘changed world circumstances’ are more likely the worsening western world economic state, the collapse of world trade and the dramatically worsening financial debts of the under-developed countries. They are finding that the harder they run and the more they try to export, the poorer and more in debt they become. The real threat arises from the possibility of internal economic collapse. The Russians could be on the moon for all the effect that Russia is having directly on those countries. Of course, there is a communist threat in the sense that in such economic and political chaos local communists might come into power. In such circumstances gunboats to guard against Russian invasion will achieve nothing in stabilising those countries. The threat is not from without, unless it be economic threat from other so-called friendly Western economies. Why do such items seemingly so remote from the ‘I am going to see Carter and I am going to tell him what to do’ line, which the Prime Minister was pushing before he went on his trip, emerge as main discussion points in a 75 minute meeting with President Carter?

Every picture tells a story. Perhaps the answer is contained in the picture of the Prime Minister in the Age of 2 February 1980, which I invite honourable members to look at. He looks as if there is a dead cat under his nose. The only other non-vegetable or non-mineral matter in the picture is a smiling President Carter. No doubt

President Carter had told our Prime Minister that sabre rattling was all very well, but in reality all that the Prime Minister had was an empty scabbard so he had better focus on the needs of the fragile economies in the South Pacific. Incidentally, President Carter does not look particularly dead to me- not as dead as he was a few short weeks ago in the presidential pre-selection race before Iran blew up and a lovely national crisis struck the United States and rallied support for the fast-failing President. It is funny that Iran should have been mentioned as in the same report in the Age of 2 February we find this:

But asked if the President had given him any hard intelligence information supporting his view that Iran was under threat Mr Fraser said there was very good ‘empirical evidence’-

That usually means none at ail- that his assessment was correct provided by the ‘total and long history of communist expansion ‘.

We have heard that song before, and as long as the West keeps singing it communism will spread without any effort on the part of the Soviet Union. Let me make my position quite clear. I am opposed to any country, particularly if it is the USSR or the United States of America, invading or offering massive military aid and a military presence. The communists invade and the West provides a military presence. Either way I object to either of them being offered or imposed upon small countries considered by either of the major world bullies or policemen to be in their respective spheres of influence. In other words, a plague on both their houses. The USSR has behaved like the thug it has too often been in the past and ‘helped’ Afghanistan; a stupid mistake because it now provides the United States of America with a ready excuse to ‘help’ Pakistan, despite recent United States criticism of the Pakistan regime, and to prepare to ‘liberate’ Iran if that country should become too insecure. I would think there is absolute certainty that the insecurity that is in Iran will become increasingly unstable unless the religious fanaticism now rampant in that country is controlled. In fact, what has happened in Iran is a perfect example of how the Western world deceives itself by singing the same old song of communist expansion in terms of external threats.

Remember how we loved the romance and spectacle of the Shah of Iran, particularly when he spent so much of his oil revenue on arms, over and above what he salted away in other pans of the world for himself. He accepted the Spike Milligan exhortation expressed by Spike in a letter to the New Statesman many years ago: ‘We should arm, arm, arm, arm, arm, arm, arm’. It was all in good fun and, of course, would help stop the downward march of communism, and it was good for business too. But it was not too good for the Iranian people. The arms did not stop the internal threat, the internal collapse. So the poor old Shah had to shoot off to heavily guarded seclusion elsewhere. It is true that the communists have not taken over, but one could hardly call it all a successful containment of communism and a successful securing of oil supplies for the West.

I did not notice the Russian invasion, the downward thrust of communism. Quite to the contrary, the Russians had so little to do with it that they may well have panicked. There are a lot of Moslems in Southern USSR. Afghanistan, although taken over by communism because we in the West refused to offer it real help for years, although it collapsed internally and communists took over in 1977-78, was doing very badly despite the so-called benefits of communist leadership. The danger of Afghanistan doing ‘an Iran’ was more than the USSR could contemplate so it charged like a bull into the china shop. I do not see that anyone’s security has been enhanced in the region by either the Russian or American action, which is usually the case when bully boys let loose. But I digress. I leave aside the utterly fatuous Fraser suggestion reported in the same article of the Age. It is reported:

Mr Fraser said the naval base at Cockburn Sound, HMAS Stirling, would be the most likely place to be developed as a staging facility ‘for onward transport through Australia to other parts’.

Our Prime Minister is quite a comedian in suggesting that the way onwards is to go backwards. On the same front page of the Age of the same day another more modest headline reports:

Europe cool on PM

The British, French and German Governments are not treating next week ‘s flying visit by the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, as an event of major political significance in shaping Western responses to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Indeed, they seem to regard the whole thing at a bit of a yawn.

What more could one say? Sadly there is more to say. Let me quote again from the Age. It says:

The wise heads at Downing Street, the Elysee Palace and in Bonn recognise that Mr Fraser, who faces a national election later this year, is understandably anxious to present himself to the Australian electorate as a world statesman during a tense period of East- West relations.

The iron butterfly, as Margaret Thatcher was once called, shared his views totally, but Chancellor Schmidt and President Giscard d ‘Estaing are frankly alarmed by the Anglo-American and

Australian reactions. That exposes the real purpose of these mad war mongering Malisms to which we have been exposed.

Mr Yates:

– War monger? That is what they called Churchill, and he was right.

Dr CASS:

– I said war mongering. It is all pan of election jitters. The utter cynicism of the exercise is shown in the frantic fervour with which frightening- or is it frightened- Fraser forces the Olympic boycott issue, behaving every bit like a King Canute, but potentially much more dangerously. The danger with confrontation and brinkmanship, as espoused by the Prime Minister, is that it cannot succeed either in securing oil supplies or in stopping communism, but may plunge us into the abyss of atomic war and then, in the immortal words of Tom Lehrer, after that great incandescent glow, when we are all three billion well done steaks there will be no one to pass go, no one to collect 200. The alternative to mad Malism is understanding that, for all their size, both the USA and the USSR feel insecure. Large nations in panic, trampling on smaller nations, whether Afghanistan, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Cuba or anywhere, resolve none of the world ‘s problems.

Whether we like it or not we all inhabit a rapidly shrinking planet and none of us can get off, so we had better stop shouting abuse at one another and sit down and talk. The antics of the Prime Minister would be hysterically funny if it were not for the possibility that his posturing could lead to miscalculation and disaster for all. The Prime Minister should stay at home because he plays the fool on the world stage.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned.

page 153

ACTS INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The amendment of the Acts Interpretation Act made by this Bill is designed to facilitate the computerised phototypesetting of Commonwealth legislation by enabling legislation to be printed with section headings in place of the present marginal notes, and with endnotes in place of the present footnotes. I understand that, for technical reasons, the computer-controlled printing system operates most efficiently if extraneous interruptions to the flow of type-setting like marginal notes and footnotes are eliminated.

The Bill amends sub-section 13 (3) so that section headings and endnotes shall not be taken to be part of an Act in exactly the same way as marginal notes and footnotes are now not taken to be part of an Act.

In two cognate Bills- the Amendments Incorporation Amendment Bill 1980 and the Statutory Rules Publication Amendment Bill 1980- provision will be made to enable endnotes to be used in reprints of Acts and statutory rules to refer to the enactment by which each amendment incorporated in a reprint is made.

At present all Bills and Acts when first passed are printed in pamphlet form using the hot metal printing process. The metal-printed pamphlet then has to be re-keyed onto the computer system for printing the annual volume of Acts. All annual volumes of the Acts have been so printed since 1974. New Commonwealth statutory rules and ordinances and regulations of the Territories are also printed from metal type. The annual volumes of statutory rules and laws of the Australian Capital Territory are being re-keyed for computerised phototypesetting commencing with the 1979 volume.

The computerised phototypesetting of all legislation, including Bills, from the initial drafting stage is expected to be introduced gradually over the next 12 months. This will mean a reduction in re-keying and proof-reading operations. If Bills and other legislation are originally set up by the computerised phototypesetting process all subsequent printing can be done by this process. Where particular legislation has been subject to significant amendment, reprinting from computer tapes of that legislation, as amended, can be expected to be less costly. A further advantage of complete computerisation of the typesetting of legislation is that the publication of annual volumes and of pamphlet reprints can be expected to be more expeditious because of the more efficient use of staff resources which will be possible.

The Joint Committee on Publications, in its report dated 8 June 1978, stated that the Committee was convinced that the use of the computerised phototypesetting process for the production of Commonwealth legislation would be a most worthwhile innovation. The Committee supported the rapid and total application of the process to all Bills, statutory rules, et cetera and recommended-

That all necessary assistance be given to the Government Printer to ensure that, as soon as possible, all production stages of all Commonwealth legislation be undertaken by the computerised phototypesetting process.

The software development necessary to enable new legislation to be processed through the computerised phototypesetting system in the Printing Office has proceeded to the point where the new processing methods can now be introduced. I commend the Bill to the House.

By arrangement with the Opposition I would wish to continue the debate on this Bill. Therefore, I seek the leave of the House to do so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is it the wish of the House to continue with the debate? It being the wish of the House I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I am not anxious to be pedantic about it, but I do not know what arrangements were made. I made the point today that we do not believe we should co-operate in these matters.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was given the call on the assumption that he was continuing the debate. The House did indicate, at the request of the Chair, that it consented to the continuation of the debate.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I understand that the leader on my side did consent, but I have not had a chance to discuss it with him. However, the Bill is purely a machinery matter. It relates to the use of computerised phototypesetting instead of the hot metal process. It is a technical matter which has no legal significance whatsoever. It just means that the marginal notes will become sectional headings and that there will be what are called endnotes, which will probably facilitate the general production of legislation. To that extent we have no objection to the Bill. It is in accordance with the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Publications.

Might I say that the Government asked for our consent to introduce this legislation this week. We readily gave it and today we readily indicated that we would allow the measure to go through this evening. That was before we knew that the Government proposed not to allow us to have matters of public importance discussed in the normal way.

Mr Viner:

– That is not right.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I assure the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs that it will be right from here on. If we had known when we had our party meeting today that we were not going to have matters of public importance dealt with we would not have been impressed to think that the Government was asking for our cooperation to push through legislation. We are always anxious to co-operate in matters that affect effective legislation and the Government, but if the rights of members are going to be denied we may have to insist that matters be looked at in a more rigorous fashion. Having said that, and recognising that the leader on this side has made an arrangement- it is not our practice to break any arrangement- I merely say that we have no objection to the legislation.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill looks to me to be simple, straight forward et cetera, but so has nearly every mischief-making piece of legislation in history. I am not suspecting the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) of having somewhere buried in this legislation the outline for a concentration camp or a gas oven, but this Parliament is the inheritor of a long tradition of parliamentary procedure. I think that it is very dangerous to break away from the general practice of introducing legislation, allowing time to consider it, and then letting the appropriate procedures take their course. This BUI does not seem to me to be unduly urgent. However, for reasons that have nothing to do with the Bill, it is a very important piece of legislation.

The purpose of the Bill is to expand inside the printing industry at the Government Printing Office the use of a process of printing and reproduction which has caused a great deal of industrial bother all around the world. In many respects it is part of the system which put the London Times newspaper out of print for a very long period. There is often more than meets the eye in these matters. On several occasions in recent times we have let legislation go through and somebody has had to change it a little later. I think that that happened with a Bill which dealt with access to Australian courts by overseas courts, and so on. Ministers should not adopt the procedure being followed tonight. I have no serious objection to whatever is in this legislation but we ought not adopt this procedure.

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

– in reply- Let me briefly explain to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) that the reason it is necessary to pass this Bill this evening is that it will enable all legislation from here on, and all Acts from here on, to be printed by this new computerised phototypsetting method. I will mention to the honourable member that the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill, the Amendments Incorporation Amendment Bill and the Statutory Rules

Publication Amendment Bill, which we were to deal with cognately this evening, all had their passage through the Senate facilitated by the Opposition because clearly it understood the particular need for this process at the moment. I might also say that it should lead to much greater efficiency in the printing, publication and handling of Bills and Acts of Parliament and thereby make the lot of members of parliament and senators and that of the members of the public who have to deal with the legislation very much easier in their reading, understanding and handling of legislation. So it is aimed at helping the Government Printer, the parliamentary draftsmen, the members of parliament and the public and at modernising the whole process of printing and publishing statutes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Normally I would not rise to speak in such a debate but the comments made by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) certainly warrant some sort of response. This is the only occasion on which one can respond as he closed the second reading debate when he spoke. It ought to be noted that the Minister’s portfolio is employment and youth affairs. Surely it is a function of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs to ensure that unemployment in Australia does not rise any higher than the record levels to which it has now risen. He has told us of the different way in which Hansard and the Bills are to be printed. I understand the technical language he used. He justified the change on the basis that nobody could dispute the efficiencies that would arise from the new process. Surely this calls into question the whole concept of what the continual mechanisation of processes is all about. Surely the Minister understands that the change he spoke of from the hot metal process to the computerised typesetting process will surely mean a loss of jobs for some people.

Clearly the Minister does not think very much about that because he is very busy explaining to the Treasurer (Mr Howard) how to play ludo. Obviously neither he nor the Treasurer understands how to play ludo because the Treasurer is now walking away from him. I would have thought that in a matter of this magnitude where the Minister had the responsibility of caring for the future of those who earn their living by being employed he would have given some attention to what sort of effect this change in the process will have on the employment situation not only in Canberra but also in other places. The Minister did not elaborate very greatly on that in his response to the second reading debate. I would think he will respond to what has now been said.

I hope that he will elaborate to some extent on what effect this will have on the employment of people in Canberra. If it will have an effect on the employment of people in Canberra- in other words, if fewer people will be employed- is he concerned about that? Will the same number of people be employed? Can he tell us that? I think the House is entitled to that sort of explanation. I do not think it is good enough for the Minister to stand up and say that the Opposition in the Senate facilitated the passage of this Bill and then for him to expect it so slide through this place without question. A question has been asked and I think the House deserves an answer to it.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– I do not want to spend a great deal of the time of the House on this matter at the moment. We have been assured that there is not a great deal in the legislation. I accept the assurance of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) in that regard. A couple of points have be raised by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) and others. I think it is a little unfortunate that this Bill has to go through this House at this hour as there are very few members here. We are told that it is a simple Bill which is designed to facilitate the printing of legislation and that it will be of help and benefit to honourable members. That may be true. We are to have the cooperation of the Opposition. That, I would feel, is some safeguard because the Opposition must have been informed of the matters relating to the legislation. But I do not think that it is a good thing in principle to follow such a course of action. I feel that we ought to take note of that. I accept what has been said about the factors relating to this legislation tonight, but I feel that the House should be a little careful about passing legislation in this manner at this time.

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

-in reply- In response to the remarks of the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock), I mention that this Bill and the others which will follow it have been through all the party procedures of honourable members on this side of the House. They have been examined by the party committees and they have observed the necessity for the legislation. As I pointed out in my second reading speech, the Bill seeks to amend the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill to accommodate the necessary technical alteration in the printing of Bills. This Bill amends sub-section 13 (3) so that section headings and endnotes shall not be taken to be part of an Act in exactly the same way as marginal notes and footnotes are now not taken to be part of an Act.

As the Opposition in the Senate recognised the merit of and necessity for this Bill, I expected the Opposition in this House to recognise it. As to the introduction of computerised phototypesetting, I understand that it has been in operation at the Government Printing Office for quite some time in the printing of other material. All necessary arrangements have been made to use this method in the printing of Bills and all that is required is the passing of this legislation to enable the modernisation to be carried forward from the printing of other material to the printing of Acts of Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 156

AMENDMENTS INCORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is a cognate Bill to the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1980 and the Statutory Rules Publication Amendment Bill 1980 and makes provision to enable reference to the enactment making each amendment incorporated in a reprint of an Act to be made in an endnote to the reprint. The reasons for the introduction of this Bill are the same as those referred to in my speech on the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1980. 1 commend the Bill to the House.

Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition supports the legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Viner) read a third time.

page 157

STATUTORY RULES PUBLICATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

This Bill is a cognate Bill to the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1980 and the Amendments Incorporation Amendment Bill 1980 and makes provision to enable reference to any amendments to statutory rules to be made in an endnote in the reprint of that statutory rule. The reasons for the introduction of the legislation are the same as those referred to in my speech on the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 1980. I commend the Bill to the House.

Leave granted for debate to continue forthwith.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-We have no objection to the Bill.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Could I just make one observation. While not disagreeing with the reasons for urgency and all the rest of it, I thought that perhaps a rather unfortunate expression fell from the lips of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) when he said, as if in justification of the previous Bill, that it was all right because it had been through the deliberations of a joint party committee. With respect, while I understand the reasons for that concept, the logical extension of the principle is that if the governing party of the day approves the Bill in its own committee, and that is full justification for it, why bother to bring it here at all? Why not simply say: ‘We are the government. We have the numbers. We know the Bill will go through. Let us just delegate things to party committees. ‘ I really do think that it was an appalling comment. I know that it just slipped out. It is very late at night and it is well past our bed time, but I hope the Minister’s comment does not indicate a state of mind which says: ‘Let us leave all these matters to the parties. The party structure will work out what ought to be done, and the Parliament just rubber stamps it.’

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I support the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones). After all, the Minister’s party has passed some pretty dreadful legislation in its time.

Dr Cass:

– What do you mean? I thought you meant the party of the honourable member for Lalor.

Mr BRYANT:

– I would be the first to admit that occasionally even our side of the House has done things like this when it has wanted them in a hurry. What intrigues me is the necessity to produce three pieces of legislation for what is about five minutes work. Has it something to do with some constitutional requirement that ought to be amended, or is it just some piece of pedantry that flows from a legal mind, or is it a full employment program for printers, paper manufacturers, or draftsmen?

Dr Cass:

– Or parliamentarians.

Mr BRYANT:

-Or parliamentarians.

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

– in reply- I am enjoying the little debate we are having on these very innocent Bills. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) completely misunderstood the context of my remarks. I was responding directly to comments made by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock), who suggested that it may have been inadvisable to introduce this legislation now. I sought to point out to him that, with respect to his position in this House, these Bills had received the scrutiny of the committee system of the Government. Referring to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), I then pointed out that the Opposition in the Senate had facilitated passage of this legislation because it had seen the necessity for it. I expected that the Opposition in this House would have been of the same mind as the Opposition in the Senate. It was no more and no less than that. Certainly there was no intention to contradict the necessity for all the parliamentary procedures in this democratic Parliament of ours.

As to the necessity for the three Bills, I thought it would not have escaped the attention of the honourable member for Wills that we were dealing with three separate subject matters, each Bill being required to amend an Act in force dealing with different subject matters such as statutory rules. Different legislation is needed to deal with each subject matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I wonder whether I could raise a matter for consideration by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner). Does the new format and the significantly different typeface in what we have before us mean that the Government has jumped the gun and that the new method of typesetting the Minister spoke about has been adopted without going through the parliamentary procedures?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 158

DEATH OF MR D. J. CURTIN

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– by leave- It was announced today that Mr D. J. Curtin had died. I had the pleasure of sitting for a long time in this House with our late friend. I am very sorry that the forms of the House have been amended, departed from.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Truncated.

Mr KILLEN:

– Or truncated. No longer can we look as we should upon the lives of those who have served here. I can see my late honourable friend sitting over there on the Opposition benches. He was a very robust character. He had little formal education. I came to know him very closely indeed, and we shared a number of views- I suppose some people would say uncommon views. He never disguised his political views. It is often said that Danny Curtin ‘s wife always wrote his speeches. I do not know whether that is true or false, but he always delivered them with very great vigour. I will never forget my late honourable friend. All of us in this place are exposed at some time or another to pressure and we all respond differently. I remember one such occasion when my late friend came to me and said: ‘Come out of the House’. In so doing he spared me from embarrassment. One person who sits opposite on one occasion was plagued with an extraordinary personal difficulty. Dan Curtin went to him, gave him a fistful of money, and said: ‘Do what you can with it’. He was a boilermaker, and I can hear him now saying: ‘Do not talk to me about shipbuilding. I built HMAS Warramunga’.

After he left here I used to ring him on Saturdays and we would talk about what happened in Parliament or on the racetrack. He was a very fine person; a very rugged character. I look back on the fact that I sat in the Parliament with him. He was the predecessor of my distinguished friend, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). I am sure that my friend will take no offence when I say that they were different in personality. He used to say to me: ‘Jimmy, slug it Out, but always offer a point of view’. Danny Curtin always offered a point of view. I would like to think that the House could find some means whereby it could recall the people who have served in the House and who have passed away. Dan Curtin, to me, was one of the really great characters. I can see him now, sitting next to Trombone Thompson. I arrived here a quarter of a century ago. To his family may I say that he was one of the most robust characters I ever knew. I like to think that the Parliament will remember him with affection and warmth.

page 158

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Federal Police- Death of Passengers on Aircraft Travelling Overseas- Death of Mr D. J. Curtin- Soviet Union: Exit Visas- Dismissal of Australian Broadcasting Commission Employee- Zimbabwe-Rhodesia- Death of Mr Tony Joyce

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

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I must say that I think we all feel moved and warmed by the remarks of the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). I am glad that he took the opportunity to speak as he did. I agree with him in that I think the Standing Orders Committee ought to make some provision whereby we can pay tribute to distinguished former members of the House.

However, I want to draw the attention of the House to some absurd anomalies in the organisation of the Australian Federal Police. The service has been divided into two categories- a general police component and a police protective service component. The first category has a complement of 1,134 and the second 1,448. I draw attention to a general instruction issued by the Commissioner of Police, Sir Colin Woods, on 12 October 1979. For the benefit of honourable members who will be avid to read it tomorrow, I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 159

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE ACT 1979

General Instruction

I, Colin Philip Joseph WOODS, the Commissioner of Police of the Australian Federal Police, hereby issue the following General Instruction in pursuance of paragraph 14 (b) of the Australian Federal Police Act 1 979.

page 159

ARREST OF PERSON BY MEMBER OF PROTECTIVE SERVICE COMPONENT

Dated this 12th day of October 1979.

Commissioner of Police

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I thank the House. The procedure set down for the arrest of a person by a member of the protective service component really reads very much like an obstacle race. Members of the protective service component have virtually no more power than their common law right to make a citizen’s arrest. The power to arrest is validated only if the protective service officer takes the person he wishes to detain before either a member of the relevant State police or a member of the general police component of the Federal Police.

I can see the problem of wishing to avoid unnecessary jurisdictional disputes between Federal and State police. I also agree that police ought not to be given unlimited powers against citizens. In many ways it is a healthy sign to have their rights and powers set out specifically. But I believe that the regulations are over-complicated and really do create a kind of Keystone Cops situation in which, for example, an experienced sergeant in the protective service is obliged to find a constable of the Federal Police, perhaps the most junior constable on the strength and ask him, in effect, to validate the decision he has taken; to hand the person that he has arrested over to him and say: ‘Look, is that all right? Do you, as the most junior policeman in the general police force validate what I as a senior sergeant have decided is the right thing to do?’

It does not take much imagination to think of a situation where, say, at Mascot airport, or

Tullamarine airport, or on any Commonwealth property somebody is apprehended by a member of the protective service at 3 o’clock in the morning after there has been a late arrival of an overseas flight. The protective service officer has reason to suspect that there has been a breach of the Customs regulations and the man perhaps pulls a gun on him or perhaps a kilo of white stuff falls out of his pocket and the officer wants to make an arrest. Right, that is terrific! So he makes the arrest but what he then has to say to the person he has arrested is: ‘Excuse me, I don’t want to hold you up, but is it all right with you if we go and find a member of the general police force and ask him whether it is all right for me to detain you?’ That is precisely what the regulations require. It is ludicrous. I will read out what the regulations provide: . . where an arrest is made by a member of the protective service component that member shall as soon as practicable-

  1. a) deliver the person arrested to:

    1. if the arrest is for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, or a law of or in force in the Australian Capital Territory-a member of the general police component;
    2. if the arrest is for an offence against a law of a State, or a law of a State having application in relation to a Commonwealth place … a member of the police force of that State;

So in other words he might say: ‘Now look, I have a few problems with you. Perhaps you have broken a State law as well. If you have broken a State law we had better see if there’s anyone around the joint whom I can hand you over to’. So we have this quite absurd situation. The effect of it has been a very great sense of demoralisation within the members of the general protective service because they say: ‘Look, we’re only pretend police. We are not really endowed with the ordinary powers of police’. I think that they are in a most unfortunate situation. Of course the reality is that they simply ignore the rule. In practice, they act on the assumption that the person detained does not really know the difference between the two forces and they simply disregard the rule. I believe that the rule ought to be altered and I would like to see the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) change the rule to make sure that a reasonable provision is inserted to overcome this absurdity.

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

Mr JULL:
Bowman

-Late last year a matter concerning the death of passengers on aircraft travelling overseas came to my attention and I decided to do a little bit of investigating. I put two questions on the Notice Paper which were answered today by the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt). They are questions Nos. 5103 and 5104.I raise the matter again tonight because I think this problem will increase, especially with the introduction of cheaper airfares and the greater number of people using our airline services to go overseas. The problem arises, especially in the case of advance purchase booking fares, inasmuch as many aged people who travel on these nights cannot gain any sort of insurance against their fares. Indeed, many insurance companies will not cover them for health situations or for death while they are overseas. These particular questions concerned the procedure that would be followed in the case of death on an aircraft.

I was interested to find out that on Qantas Airways Ltd aircraft alone, on long haul trips to Europe last year, four people died during the flight. I was told that last year on all airlines out of Australia, including the foreign airlines, a dozen people could have died. I think that people should be aware that it is the responsibility of the relatives to pay for the return of the remains of the deceased to Australia. This is a situation that is not singled out particularly for Qantas because I understand that it is covered by all airlines under the International Air Transport Association arrangement. In actual fact if somebody does buy an advance purchase air ticket he has no comeback on the airline at all should something happen to him. The plain facts of the situation are that if someone does pass away between Australia and, say, London, the relatives will be up for a considerable sum of money indeed to bring the remains back to this particular place. Considering the number of aged people travelling- I understand there are great numbers of people in excess of 75 years travelling on advance purchase tickets and on very full aircraft- they should be made fully aware of the situation that does exist.

The other point I would like to raise is that some sympathetic consideration should be given, in the case of Qantas at least, to people who find themselves in a situation where a relative has died on a flight. I understand that it costs some thousands of dollars to bring the remains back to Australia. It also seems rather incongruous to me, and I do not say this in any supercilious way, that people have no way of getting any son of refund on a return ticket and they cannot make any contribution from the value of that return ticket towards the cost of bringing back any remains to Australia. It would seem to be rather inhuman that that situation should exist.

There are a number of anomalies in the advance purchase airline ticket arrangements concerning the insurance of travellers overseas and I bring this matter up tonight so that, in any review of these conditions, this particular aspect may be considered. It should also serve as a warning to passengers intending going overseas that in many cases they may not be able to buy any form of insurance if they are over 75 years of age or, indeed, have a medical pre-condition in their record. It is a problem that has been raised in my electorate and one which has caused a great deal of concern in one family in particular. People should be aware that they will be committed to a great deal of cost should such a situation arise. A case could well be made out for a compulsory medical examination of aged and ill passengers before they are allowed to leave Australia.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be brief. I apologise to my colleagues but earlier today remembrance was expressed in this House concerning my predecessor in the seat of KingsfordSmith, the late Mr Dan Curtin. Unfortunately, because of new procedures it appears that the only time when one can make a personal expression in these matters is in the adjournment debate. Earlier today honourable members stood in their places as a mark of respect to my late colleague. On a personal note, it is important to place on record the work that he did. The Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) was gracious enough this evening to mention, by our leave, his own admiration of him. I would like to add that Dan Curtin was a very loyal and respected member of the Australian Labor Party who did outstanding work for his constituency and could be described as one of the most memorable characters to have entered the national Parliament. He never suffered from a depressive psychosis; he was always of a boisterous and outgoing nature.

Knowing that these proceedings are broadcast, in his maiden speech he made a call to his mother- an action that I think was tremendous -to mention how well he was doing and how well he hoped she was doing too. On another occasion he mentioned that he could not keep an appointment with his dentist and accordingly give him a call to that effect. Although one might say that that was a departure from the Standing Orders it revealed the humanity of one who was a great Australian and played his role in this Parliament for some 20 years. The electors of Kingsford-Smith supported him through thick and thin during those troublesome times. On behalf of my family I would like to express our condolences to his widow and family.

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

-During the recent parliamentary break, while I was visiting Israel, I called at the Beit Milman Immigrants’ Absorption Centre, which would be known in our terminology as a migrant hostel. That absorption centre concentrates on receiving Soviet Jews who have come out of that country, usually via Vienna. I was approached by several people who asked me to make public in Australia two cases about which they were deeply concerned. Indeed, they were sufficiently concerned to ask that they be made public. They did not fear that any further damage or disadvantage could be suffered by the people involved in the Soviet Union.

The first case that I want to raise is best described by reading a letter from the person who approached me at the Beit Milman Immigrants’ Absorption Centre, Rachel Kushnir. She wrote to me as follows:

Dear Sir,

I am most sorry to disturb you with a personal problem but I am at my wits end and do not know what to do, whom to turn to.

I am writing to ask you to help my son Alexander, who has been refused an exit visa to Israel since 1 976.

I last saw my son in 1973- the year in which I came to settle in Israel. We never imagined we would be separated for such a long time. Alik served in the army from 1969-70. Ten years have passed since his demobilisation, so his army service cannot be a reason to detain him any longer.

I might interpolate that the Soviet Union does place on people who have served in the armed forces restrictions for a number of years after the completion of their services so that they will not take military secrets out of the Soviet Union. That has some justification but I understand that the normal period is something like five years. The letter continues:

He studied construction engineering in night school and has not been allowed to work in this profession- so he has never worked in any classified field. I simply don’t know what to think or do.

Most recently, in December 1979, Alik was again refused an exist visa. This was after having waited over one and a half years for an answer to his application. The tension of waiting was unbearable and now that the suspense is over, it is more unbearable.

Please do everything you can to help Alik join me, his brother and grandparents in Israel soon.

May I thank you in advance for your help, time and concern.

Another case that was raised with me concerns a Mr Michael Kalendarev and his family who are also in the Soviet Union, in Leningrad. The Kalendarev family first applied for an exit visa in November 1973. They were refused on the ground that Yevgenia, the woman in the family, had acquired State secrets while working at a radio electronics institute. She was actually constructing boxes in which radios and other electronic equipment were packed. Yevgenia has not worked at this factory since April 1973. Nevertheless, the family are repeatedly denied exit visas. Boris, the son, was twice refused a visa when he applied on his own account, on the ground that he may have acquired secrets from his mother.

It has become apparent in the last year or so that the Soviet Union has tightened up on exit visas for Soviet Jews who wish to go to Israel and other countries. People had hoped that this year, with the Olympic Games coming up, the Soviet Union might loosen its requirements rather than tighten them up. These are not people who are seeking to escape illegally. They are people who have legal invitations to go to another country and settle there. They are people who are prepared to pay the costs involved in obtaining an exit visa- 300 roubles plus 400 roubles to be permitted to renounce their Soviet citizenship. There is no question about that at all, but obstacles are being put in the way of such people- the refuseniks, as they are now being called- who have been refused approval to leave the Soviet Union. Many who had applied in recent years have withdrawn their applications for fear that they and their families may suffer some disadvantage. It is interesting that I, an Australian parliamentarian, should be asked to raise these matters in this Parliament simply to add one small piece of information to the general picture which is emerging about the way in which the refuseniks are being treated.

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

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I want to place on record some documents and also my concern about a case involving an Australian Broadcasting Commission announcer, Holger Brockman, who has been sacked by the Commission. Holger Brockman was an announcer for 2BL. His program followed the AM program and that of Caroline Jones, the City Extra program, and ran from about11 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Mr Brockman read an article from the Melbourne Truth of 26 January 1980 about conscription. As I have mentioned to the Minister I have several documents relating to the case. One is the article in question. Another is a letter from the general manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Sir Talbot Duckmanton. Another is a letter concerning the case from the

Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the Hon. A. A. Staley. The remaining document is the Minister’s summary of the Brockman case. I seek leave to have those documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

page 162

TRUTH SAYS EASE UP, MP FRASER

An air of unreality is starting to cloud the simmering Afghanistan crisis.

And fanning the flames of hysteria is the Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser.

Mr Fraser needs to calm down.

He is beginning to sound like his predecessors in the mid-1960s, the politicians who sentour soldiers to fight an unwinnable war in Vietnam- and lost.

Yes, of course, the Russian move into Afghanistan has enraged the world and, yes, the Soviet bear must be contained.

But is Australia in danger of over-reacting to the crisis?

Mr Fraser appears to have adopted a policy of all-the-way with Jimmy Carter.

Conscripts

Will he follow Mr Carter in that President’s reported plan to reintroduce military conscription for American teenagers?

Mr Fraser’s hurried; and dramatic; flight to Washington, with an army of hangers-on, smacks of a leader who is determined to play this crisis to the hilt.

Goodness knows what ‘ bold ‘ measures he will return with.

It is time for Australia to stop and think.

By all means let us take measures on the Red intervention in Afghanistan. But let them be taken when temperatures have cooled somewhat and when the Russians’ intentions are clearer to us all.

It is tragic that the politicians are seizing on the Olympic Games to play their own political games.

What would they have done if the Olympics had not been on this year?

Mr Fraser, we believe, should take a sedative and have a good lie down.

If he doesn’t, we’re going to be turned into a nation bristling with arms, filled with phobias- and at war.

page 162

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Broadcast House, 1 45 Elizabeth Street,

Sydney

Office of the General Manager 6 February 1980

The Hon. L. R. Johnson, M.P.,

Member for Hughes,

Sutherland, NSW 2232

Dear Mr Johnson,

Thank you for your telegram addressed to me on 4 February last, which referred to the ABC’s having terminated Mr Holger Brockman ‘s employment

The ABC’s decision was taken on 31 January 1980, after Mr Brockman had broadcast and indicated personal support for partisan political views on a matter of public interest. This broadcast occurred notwithstanding firm directions to

Mr Brockman after a previous similar breach of ABC program policy which had taken place on 23 January1 980.

Clearly the ABC would not have taken such action over a program which dealt in a proper and professional manner with a matter of public concern such as conscription. On the other hand, we cannot be seen to be indifferent when a member of staff acts in contravention of a fundamental principle of ABC program policy after due warning arising from a similar earlier contravention.

Yours sincerely,

  1. S. Duckmanton

General Manager

Minister for Post and Telecommunications

Parliament House

Canberra, ACT 2600 7 February 1980

Dear Mr Johnson

Thank you for your telegram of 5 February1 980 concerning the recent dismissal of the ABC announcer Mr Holger Brockman.

I had seen reference to this matter in recent Press reports and, as a matter of course, had asked the ABC for a report on the circumstances. You will, of course, appreciate that as an independent statutory authority, decisions concerning staffing matters are the prerogative and responsibility of ABC management itself. As the Minister responsible, however, I do have a duty to keep myself informed so that I can properly discharge my responsibilities to the Parliament and its Members.

The ABC has a longstanding program policy, of which its broadcasters are fully aware, that the ABC should not, nor be seen to, offer personal or editorial positions on matters of public concern. In the ABC’s view, Mr Brockman contravened these guidelines in a broadcast on 31 January wherein he indicated personal support for partisan political views on such a matter. This broadcast occurred notwithstanding firm directions to Mr Brockman after a similar breach of program policy guidelines on 23 January. In management terms, the ABC considered it could not then act otherwise.

Yours sincerely

  1. A. Staley

page 163

QUESTION

SUMMARY

Mr Brockman was employed by the ABC on a term employment engagement. That engagement had been for three months up until January,1980 and had been extended until May. Mr Brockman was employed on a light entertainment program presented by Radio 1 in Sydney from11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. The program which has a 90% music content follows three hours of extensive public affairs programming consisting of AM and City Extra. These latter programs are manned by professional reporting staff and ABC employees generally are aware that they are not to endorse or initiate public comment.

On 23 January Mr Brockman quoted from an article in the Melbourne Truth concerning the Agent Orange Inquiry. He is alleged to have alluded to difficulties in dealing with the bureaucracy on this matter and to have indicated along the lines, ‘God help these people because the Government won’t’. Brockman followed on these items with recorded musical items for an album ‘No Nukes’. All comments on this matter and the following related musical items were presented without reference to the producer or executive producer of the program.

Following these incidents Mr Brockman was advised that he was considered to be in breach of program policy and that such incidents should not recur. On 31 January, however, Mr

Brockman again read from a newspaper article (Melbourne Truth) dealing with conscription and proceeded to make several comments on the issue in relation to current international situations. Following this incident Mr Brockman was advised that he was to be dismissed as he had breached program policy again and had obviously ignored the warning given on the earlier occasion.

The issue from the ABC’s point of view is that Mr Brockman continued to breach programming policy and that such breaches after he had been warned could not be accepted. Accordingly Mr Brockman ‘s services were terminated. The issues referred to by Mr Brockman are, of course, covered from time to time in other ABC programs which aim specifically to deal with public affairs. In this case however, Mr Brockman chose to interpose his own views and comments on the subjects without reference to his producers and contrary to the program’s basic philosophy which is to provide light entertainment. In response to specific questioning the ABC advised me that had Mr Brockman been a permanent employee he would have been stood down subject to an inquiry into the issue. As he was in fact only a temporary employee however, the ABC believe that his actions warranted dismissal.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I thank the Minister and the House. In summary, the Minister has said that Mr Brockman indicated personal support for partisan political views on this matter. I want to make the point that in fact Mr Brockman read the article and made no comment about it. At the conclusion of his reading of the article he played a song called ‘The Same Old Story ‘ which apparently was interpreted as his satirical comment on the situation. In the letter which has now been incorporated in Hansard the General Manager of the ABC, Sir Talbot Duckmanton, said in part:

Clearly the ABC would not have taken such action over a program which dealt in a proper and professional manner with a matter of public concern such as conscription. On the other hand, we cannot be seen to be indifferent when a member of staff acts in contravention of a fundamental principle of ABC program policy after due warning arising from a similar earlier contravention.

Apparently there was some very trivial matter which was mentioned to him and about which some comment was made, but it was of little consequence. I simply say that it is a bad thing that the ABC appears to be under such undue censorship. It is not uncommon for ABC announcers to read editorial comment. It is frequently done and I know that it has been done since Mr Brockman ‘s dismissal. I think that because of that circumstance the ABC and possibly the Minister ought to establish that the treatment of Mr Brockman has not been discriminatory. I cannot help but feel that there is some ultrasensitivity about the issue which was the subject of the editorial that he read, that is, the issue of conscription. There seems to be a case of discrimination involved.

I make this further comment. If ABC announcers are in breach of program policy when they source and quote newspaper articles, there is a good case for reviewing such a policy. In the past announcers have been at liberty to quote from articles and reports without fear of losing their positions. It is a source of grave concern that the concentration of ownership of Australia’s commercial media in the hands of a few media barons has seriously limited the information made available to the public through these sources. This concentration has placed an additional burden on the ABC to broadcast all viewpoints and I think it is imperative that this channel should be independent and never seen to be biased. I believe the sacking of Mr Brockman could indicate a bias. For that reason I ask the Minister and the General-Manager, Sir Talbot Duckmanton, to review this case again and to give an assurance that the ABC can act with the independence which all Australians demand of it.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I wish to speak about another matter, but I support what my colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) has just said. The general impression abroad is that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has become so bland that it is almost out of sight on issues and that a good deal of the life has gone out of it. I hope it will overcome that.

I want to express my dismay at the events which are occurring in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. I want to place on record that what appears to be happening is the result of a serious misunderstanding of the whole situation in that country by the people involved at Lancaster House and the people involved in the Lusaka agreement. I am one who has no great faith in institutions, who has no faith whatsoever in constitutions and who does not put much faith in the protestations of political parties. The facts are that in April last year an election was conducted in that country which put into office a majority-supported African Government to administer a country that is very efficiently administered, with a fair hope that it would develop into a really democratic society. A very efficient and enormous operation was mounted by that community to protect everybody during the voting, but as a result of the deliberations at Lusaka and at Lancaster House there has been injected into ZimbabweRhodesia an element of force and violence which makes it impossible to conduct the current election freely and fairly. I believe that the people responsible for that arrangement will have blood on their hands as a result.

I have some respect for the people in Bishop Muzorewa ‘s party whom I have met and for the

Bishop himself, but I do not think I would vote for his party. However, a properly elected government was produced and an alternative solution to bringing back the Patriotic Front people fully armed- as has happened- should have been found. As I said earlier, I have no faith at all in constitutions, and sections of the constitutions which were under criticism at the time were not greatly different from- in fact they were just about identical with- some of the sections in our Australian Security Intelligence Organisation legislation and in some other legislation in this place. The requirement that an African should be at the head of the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia Police Force, for instance, did not seem to appeal to our Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when he was appointing somebody to be head of the Australian Police Force. He got somebody from Britain. The same applies to Aborigines in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The person who was appointed as head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs- this is no reflection on him- in fact superseded the senior Aboriginal person in the Australian Public Service, Mr Charles Perkins.

So under consideration in ZimbabweRhodesia were principles and policies that we were not prepared to implement here. What I am concerned and dismayed about is that it looks as though a country which was on its way to becoming peaceful and free has now been placed in a position which it will be very fortunate to get out of without great bloodshed. I am quite sure that the people indulging in the deliberations did not really understand what the situation was.

Before I resume my seat I want to say that I support absolutely the remarks of those honourable members who tonight raised the question of our rather ungracious attitude to former members. I have raised this matter previously. I have written to Mr Speaker about it and I have made speeches about it. I think that ‘ungracious’ is the most temperate word I can use. I think that totally insensitive’ are the words we ought to apply. I hope that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will take the matter up and ensure that people who serve this Parliament for a long period or a short period have our view of them properly recorded in this Parliament and that we carry out the procedures that prevailed in this Parliament for three-quarters of a century.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

-Tonight I want to talk very briefly about the tragic murder in Zambia of Tony Joyce of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. As a former member of the Australian Journalists Association and as a district committee man I cannot express strongly enough my disgust and my abhorrence at the style of murder and at the acceptance apparently by some nations of the self-assumed right to murder journalists. We have seen it happen in Timor. Now we have seen it happen in Zambia. We saw in Zambia the incarceration of Tony Joyce’s cameraman in a disgraceful attempt by the Zambian Government to pretend that Mr Joyce was involved in something improper, which was totally untrue. The whole affair requires our greatest condemnation.

I stress that many Australian journalists go to great risks to bring the truth and the news to the people of Australia. The people of Australia are entitled to be told what is going on in the world and they have an outstanding group of people doing so. I suppose it is important that the people of Australia recognise the risk to the lives of journalists that is involved in so many cases in bringing the news to Australia so that we have an accurate and proper version of what is happening around the world. I stress that I believe this Government should take the strongest possible action to bring to the attention of the Zambian Government the abhorrence of the Australian people at the wilful murder of Tony Joyce, the incarceration of his cameraman and the disgraceful behaviour of the Zambian Government in this affair. I urge the Government to do anything it can in our relations with the Zambian Government to bring about some recognition by that Government of the fact that the Australian Government will not stand idly by and see its journalists murdered in cold blood.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! It being11 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

House adjourned at11 p.m.

page 166

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Petroleum Product Prices (Question No. 4654)

Mr Humphreys:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 18 September1979:

  1. Following the Government’s directive to the Prices Justification Tribunal in respect of its hearings on claims from certain oil companies to increase prices for petroleum products as a result of purchases on the international spot market, will the Government tender a submission to the Tribunal inquiry into differential pricing in the petroleum marketing industry and related matters; if so, what advice will the Government tender.
  2. Will continuation of differential pricing among the oil companies affect sales if supplies of petroleum increase and companies with cheaper prices are able to supply market demand.
  3. 3 ) What are the other effects of differential pricing.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. No.
  2. and (3) See Statement of 27 June1979 on Energy Policy by the Prime Minister.

Petroleum Imports (Question No. 4656)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on1 8 September1 979:

  1. ) What was the cost of petroleum imports for July1979.
  2. What was the percentage increase in cost over the figure for July 1978.
  3. 3 ) What was the increase in petroleum consumption from July 1978 to July 1979.
  4. Which companies or organisations were responsible for the increase in petroleum imports.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. $A 155,743,568 (Value for duty for Customs purposes). (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics).
  2. 82.66 per cent increase. (Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics).
  3. 8.6 per cent increase in consumption of major petroleum fuels.

Details of consumption of other petroleum products are not available monthly.

  1. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is unable to supply any information relating to individual companies as these details are confidential.

Community Relations in Western Australia (Question No. 4669)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on18 September 1979:

  1. What arrangements exist for the enforcement in Western Australia of the Racial Discrimination Act.
  2. Does the Consultative Committee on Community Relations in Western Australia have an official role in relation to alleged breaches of the Act; if not, what is the Committee ‘srole.

  3. Does the Committee receive any:

    1. financial support and
    2. other support from the Commonwealth in relation to its operating expenses.

  4. How many cases of alleged breaches of the Act did the Committee deal with in:

    1. 1977 and
    2. 1978 and how many were referred to the Commissioner for Community Relations.
  5. When will the Government appoint an Assistant Commissioner or other official representative of the Commissioner to deal with alleged breaches of the Act in Western Australia.
  6. When will a Conciliation Committee be appointed.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s question:

  1. ) Arrangements for the enforcement of the Racial Discrimination Act1975 in Western Australia are similar to those that apply in all States and Territories, except New South Wales and Victoria which have an officer of the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations situated in Sydney and Melbourne. When necessary, the Commissioner for Community Relations and officers visit Western Australia to pursue matters under the Act.
  2. The Consultative Committees on Community Relations are not statutory bodies established under the Racial Discrimination Act1975. They are voluntary bodies of persons who, I am informed, assist the Commissioner in inquiring into and settling complaints of racial discrimination.
  3. The Committees receive no financial support from the Commonwealth Government. However, I am informed that the Commissioner for Community Relations has paid petrol costs for visits by members of the Committee in Perth to Katanning and Quairading. The cost was $34.
  4. I have been informed that in 1977-78 a total of 43 complaints were received from persons in Western Australia but that the records of the Commissioner do not readily indicate how many of these were referred to a Consultative Committee on Community Relations in Western Australia. I have also been informed that in 1978-79 a total of 91 complaints were received from persons in Western Australia and that of these,15 were referred by the Commissioner for Community Relations to the Consultative Committees on Community Relations. The Commissioner was unable to advise the number of complaints that were made in Western Australia to the Committees direct.
  5. The question of appointing an official representative of the office of the Commissioner for Community Relations has been considered but has been deferred pending the passage of the Human Rights Commission Bill 1979 and the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 1979. The matter will be considered further after this legislation has been enacted.
  6. The question of appointing Conciliation Committees is a matter which will no doubt be considered by the Human Rights Commission when appointed.

Commonwealth Regional Development Program (Question No. 4678)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on19 September 1979:

  1. What assistance grants have been made under the Commonwealth Regional Development Program since its inception.
  2. ) What was the purpose and sum of each gram.
  3. What was the location of each project for which assistance has been granted and in which electoral division is each project located.

  4. How many grants were approved in electoral divisions represented by:

    1. Australian Labor Party Members;
    2. National Country Party of Australia Members; and
    3. Liberal Party of Australia Members.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. to (3) The details of assistance approved under the Commonwealth Regional Development Program to 31 May 1 979, were made available in response to question 4133 of 4 June1979 from the Leader of the Opposition. In the period from 31 May1979 to 24 October1979 (the date of the most recent Decentralisation Advisory Board meeting), I have approved the following loans after receiving recommendations from the Decentralisation Advisory Board:
  1. The information in relation to electoral divisions can be determined from the answers to (1 ) to (3) above.

Stocks of Petroleum Products (Question No. 4689)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on19 September1979:

  1. ) Did the Prime Minister state in his energy statement of 27 June 1979 that in order to improve the basis of the Government’s monitoring of the oil situation, the Minister for National Development would write to the oil companies formally requesting that they provide complete data on the supply, consumption, stocks and exports of petroleum products.
  2. If so, when did he write to the companies.
  3. Has he received replies; if so, when.
  4. Will the replies be incorporated in his energy statement.
  5. What are the criteria which will enable his Department to check the information supplied by the companies.
  6. What action does he intend to take of any or all of the oil companies fail to provide the information required.
  7. Will he release the information provided by the oil companies; if not, why not.
  8. What were the stocks of (a) motor spirit, (b) aviation turbine fuel, (c) aviation gasoline, (d) heating oil, (e) automotive distillate, (f) industrial diesel fuel, (g) fuel oil and (h) lubricating oil on hand as at18 September 1979.
  9. What are the reserves of these products in each of the States and the Territories.
  10. What are the stocks of crude oil held in Australia.
  11. Where are they located.
  12. What proportion of these stocks is heavy crude.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. to (7) The then Minister for National Development met with the chief executives of the oil companies on12 July 1979 at which this request was made and the subject discussed. The oil industry reports data on imports, exports, supply, consumption and stocks of crude oil and petroleum products at monthly intervals which, with the exception of stocks, are published at regular intervals.
  3. to (12) Information on stocks is regarded as confidential.

Bureau of Mineral Resources (Question No. 4690)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

  1. ) When will the new and upgraded role be given to the Bureau of Mineral Resources as promised in the Prime Minister’s speech on energy on 27 June 1979.
  2. How many extra staff will be employed by the Bureau when it is expanded and in what Branches.
  3. How many staff are employed by the Bureau as at 18 September 1979 compared with those employed in 1975, and how many will the Bureau have when it is given an expanded role.
  4. Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Financial Review of15 August 1979 which stated that equipment at the Bureau of Mineral Resources worth $30,000 for assessing the production characteristics of Australia’s oil reservoirs has lain idle for 4 years because of Government staff cuts; if so, what substance is there in the report and is it a fact that only two persons are required to operate the equipment.
  5. Is it also a fact that Esso-BHP now have their PVT analysis carried out at an Esso laboratory in Houston, USA, and that smaller companies have not been able to send their samples for analysis because of the cost, resulting in large Australian oil reservoirs never having had PVT analyses carried out on them.
  6. Have the Government’s financial restrictions on the Bureau over the last 314 years had a disastrous effect on the assessment of Australia ‘s oil reserves.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. I announced details of the outcome of the Government ‘s review of the role and functions of the Bureau of Mineral Resources on 25 October1979.
  2. and (3) At 30 September 1979 there were 562 staff employed by the Bureau of Mineral Resources; at 30 September 1975 the number was 670. The number of staff required for the new role, including Research Scientists, will be a matter for progressive assessment and review.
  3. Yes. Installation and operation of the equipment was postponed because other projects had a higher priority. At least two people are needed to operate the equipment.
  4. I am informed that Esso does have a PVT facility available to it in Houston, USA. I am not in a position to comment on whether or not small companies can afford the cost of overseas PVT analyses.
  5. No.

Community Youth Support Scheme

Question No. 4710)

Mr Blewett:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:

  1. How many Community Youth Support Scheme projects were operating in South Australia as at19 September 1979 and in what Federal electoral divisions were they located.
  2. What was the approved budget for each of these schemes, sanctioned by the State Committee, during 1979.
  3. What cuts have been made in each of these project budgets as a result of the reduction of funds for the Scheme announced in the1979-80 Budget.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

Primary Industry Bank (Question No. 4741)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 September 1979:

What was the (a) level of new and total loan approvals and (b) increase in and level of (i) total loans outstanding and (ii) deposits by major source of the Primary Industry Bank for each month since it began business.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The Primary Industry Bank of Australia Limited began approving loans in November 1978 and, while monthly figures for loan approvals are not published, the Bank has advised that, by 30 June 1979, total approvals had amounted to $126.6 million. From 1 July to mid-October 1979 a further $36.4 million was approved. Of these amounts $32.5 million and $9. 1 million respectively were for the restructuring of existing debt. The Primary Industry Bank is providing to the authorities certain prescribed balance sheets and statements as required under Part VI of the Banking Act 1959. Information from these returns is being published on a regular basis in pursuance of sections 58 and 59 of the Banking Act, in the Commonwealth Gazette. In addition, under arrangements agreed between it and the Government, the Bank is providing to the authorities on a voluntary basis certain statistical returns. Consideration is currently being given to the question of publication of data from these returns.

The Primary Industry Bank has provided the following figures for loans outstanding in each month since the commencement of lending operations in November 1978:

The following table, prepared from information published monthy in the Commonwealth Gazette, sets out in broad terms the source and amount of average deposits of the Primary Industry Bank in each month from December 1978 to September 1979:

Crude Oil Production (Question No. 4742)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 26 September1979:

  1. What was the production of (a) import parity and (b) non-import parity crude oil from (i) Barrow Island (ii) Bass Strait and (iii) Queensland oil-fields during the period 1 January1979 to 30 June1979.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Narcotics Bureau (Question No. 4747)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

  1. Is it a fact that in June1979, at the time of the discovery of the murder of Mr and Mrs Douglas Wilson, there were serious allegations that information was being leaked from within the Narcotics Bureau to drug traffickers.
  2. Was an investigation into these serious allegations established at that time and the request made for a report to be furnished quickly to the Attorney-General.
  3. As it is now 3 months since the serious allegations were made, is it time for the report on these matters to be made public
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. Two persons have been charged as a result of this investigation and are before the court awaiting committal proceedings. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to disclose any report on this matter while it remains sub judice.

Equal Rights for Whites Organisation (Question No. 4755)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

  1. Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to the debate shown on the ABC television program Nationwide on Monday, 10 September 1979, between the Commissioner for Community Relations and a National Party Member of the Queensland Parliament.
  2. If so, has the Attorney-General ordered any investigation into the alleged Equal Rights for Whites Organisation in far North Queensland.
  3. Has the Attorney-General any evidence that a similar organisation in the Northern Territory has been discriminatory racially against the Aboriginal people of Australia.
  4. Will the Attorney-General publicly repudiate the Equal Rights for Whites group in far North Queensland.
  5. Will the Attorney-General order any programs in far North Queensland to counteract the propaganda of groups such as Equal Rights for Whites.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. ) I am aware of the discussion on Nationwide television program on 10 September1979.
  2. , (3) and (4) I have no knowledge that an association of this name has been established. An examination of the Hansard of the Queensland Parliament shows that the member of that Parliament to whom the honourable member refers suggested that it was time that such an organisation be formed, not that there was one in existence. I do not have any evidence of an organisation of this name in the Northern Territory.
  3. 5 ) The Government does not consider that there is a need for it to institute special publicity programs in the community relations fieldin north Queensland. The honourable member will be aware that the functions under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 include those of conducting programs for the purposes of combating racial discrimination and promoting understanding among racial and ethnic groups. The Government would expect that these functions would be exercised where there was a need.

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Free or Concessional Travel (Question No. 4761)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 September1979:

Have any senior officers of his Department accepted free travel or concessional rates from shipping or airline companies in the last two years.

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

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

I have interpreted ‘senior officers’ as referring to ‘Second Division officers’. I am advised that the Chief Migration Officer stationed in London was given permission to accept an offer from an airline of a trip to Australia on an inaugural flight in July1979. That is not an unusual arrangement, and provided a good opportunity for useful consultations. Available information and specific inquiries have not revealed any other instances of free or concessional travel by my Department’s Second Division officers.

Fuel Supplies and Consumption Targets (Question No. 4774)

Dr Blewett:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 27 September 1979:

  1. What are Australia’s projected oil requirements over the next 2 decades.
  2. What are the shortfalls over this period between requirements and locally supplied oil.
  3. 3 ) Does the Government envisage difficulties in overcoming these shortfalls from external sources; if so, does the Government foresee shortfalls between domestic demand and total (domestic and external) supply.
  4. To what extent will the weighted average fuel consumption targets for new passenger cars announced by the Prime Minister on 27 June1979 improve Australia’s oil situation over the next 2 decades.
  5. Does the Government expect that domestic car manufacturers will subscribe to the voluntary measures announced by the Prime Minister; if not, has any consideration been given to making such targets mandatory.
  6. Is he able to say whether vehicles using engines produced by General Motors-Holden at the proposed fourcylinder engine plant will adhere to the Australian targets or to the mandatory requirements of the United States of America Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act as amended by the USA National Energy Conservation Policy Act1978.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. ) and (2) Australia’s rate of self-sufficiency in crude oil, assuming no further discoveries, is estimated to decline from current level of 70 per cent to about 35 per cent in1990 and 10 per cent in 2000. As it is considered likely that there will be some further discoveries of oil in Australia in the next twenty years, these percentages tend to understate the future self-sufficiency levels.
  2. Although the oil supply situation is likely to create challenges over the coming years, the Government is satisfied that policies already implemented and those under development should ensure continuance of adequate total supplies of oil. I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s statement on Energy Policy on 27 June1 979.
  3. The program of national fuel economy goals for passenger vehicles should result in savings of motor spirit of approximately 5 per cent in 1983 and 12 per cent in 1987. This is estimated to raise Australia’s average rate of selfsufficiency over the next 2 decades by 2 percentage points.
  4. Yes.
  5. 6) In Australia, as in the USA, fuel economy goals are not defined for individual models. It is not possible, therefore, to identify any particular model as meeting or not meeting those standards.

Radioactive Waste (Question No. 4778)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 27 September1979:

  1. Does the Government accept responsibility for the safe management of existing radioactive waste arising from (a) medical research and industrial use of radio isotopes, ( b) mining and milling of radioactive ores and (c) former nuclear test sites in Australia.
  2. What financial commitment has been made by the Commonwealth with respect to the uses referred to in part (1 ) during each of the last 5 years.
  3. What methods are (a) used or (b) proposed to be used for the long-term safe storage of radioactive waste arising from each of the sources referred to in part (1 ).
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. (a) Responsibility for the safe management of radioactive waste from medical, research and industrial use of radioisotopes is a matter for the respective Governments concerned with controlling the use of radioactive materials. The Commonwealth Government has recently sought the co-operation of State Governments in developing coordinated policies in relation to management of these wastes.

    1. Management of radioactive wastes arising from mining of radioactive ores is a matter for the respective Governments responsible for the control and administration of mining. A code of practice on the management of radioactive wastes from the mining and milling of uranium ores is being developed, in consultation with the States, under the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act.
    2. Former nuclear weapons test sites at Monte Bello, Emu and Maralinga are under Commonwealth control. The Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council (AIRAC) has undertaken surveys of the three sites and reports on Maralinga and Monte Bello were tabled on 30 May 1979 and 13 November 1979 respectively by the Minister for Science and the Environment. Recommendations made by AIRAC in these reports have been implemented.

  2. (a) Minor amounts of radioactive waste arising from the medical, research and industrial use of radioisotopes are generated by various Commonwealth Departments and authorities. Management of these wastes forms part of the routine activities of those bodies and costs are not separately identifiable.

    1. In 1977-78 the Commonwealth provided $300,000 to the Department of the Northern Territory for clearance and rehabilitation of the Rum Jungle mining area. Most of this expenditure was in respect of general clean-up of the former treatment and stockpile areas.
    2. Expenditure by the Commonwealth on management of former nuclear test sites in Australia (including surveillance, radiological surveys, and repatriation of plutonium from Maralinga to UK) is estimated at:

  1. With respect to each of the categories of waste in part (1):

    1. Wastes from medical, industrial and research use of radioisotopes are currently held in suitably shielded storage facilities by a number of Commonwealth and State departments, authorities and institutions pending radioactive decay to levels enabling safe disposal (see also answer to House of Representatives Question No. 4779, House of RepresentativesHansard, 23 October 1979).
    2. Solid waste arising from the mining and milling of radioactive ores is stored in tailings dams or returned to mine excavations, using techniques similar to those applied to tailings from a wide range of other mining operations.
    3. Safe storage of radioactive wastes at atomic weapons test sites is provided by shallow ground burials. Burials of long lived radioactive wastes are secured by concrete capping.

Pensioner Telephone Rental Rebate (Question No. 4786)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. How many pensioners received the telephone rental rebate allowed by Telecom Australia, during (a)1976-77, (b) 1977-78 and (c) 1978-79.
  2. What are the conditions and restrictions applying to the availability of this rebate.
  3. How many pensioners had telephones in (a) 1976-77, (b) 1977-78 and (c) 1978-79.
  4. What was the complete range of charges (a) reduced and (b) remitted under section110 of the Telecommunications Act 1975, during (i) 1975-76, (ii) 1976-77, (iii) 1977-78 and (iv) 1978-79.
  5. How many cases were in each category of charges referred to in part (4).
Mr Staley:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. According to Department of Social Security records the number of social security pensioners and supporting parent beneficiaries who received the one-third reduction in telephone rental charges is as follows: 30 June 1977: 410,000 approx. 30 June1978: 459,000 approx. 30 June 1979: 510,000 approx.

  2. The availability of the rebate is restricted to the following persons:

    1. Blind Persons
    2. War Widow Pensioners
    3. Age, Invalid and Widow Pensioners and Supporting Parent Pensioners or Beneficiaries who qualify for Commonwealth fringe benefits
    4. Service Pensioners or TPI Pensioners under the Repatriation Act
    5. Recipients of a Tuberculosis Allowance, a Sheltered Employment Allowance or a Rehabilitation Training Allowance who, but for the receipt of that Allowance, would be eligible for an Age, Invalid or Widow’s Pension or Supporting Parents’ Benefit and who qualify for Commonwealth fringe benefits
    6. Recipients of a War Widow Pension under the Seamen ‘s War Pensions and Allowances Act
    7. British Commonwealth Veterans in receipt of Service Pensions under Division 5a of the Repatriation Act.

In addition to these requirements, to qualify for the concession a pensioner/ beneficiary must be living either alone, with another pensioner or beneficiary who qualifies for Commonwealth fringe benefits or with a person in receipt of an income not exceeding the permitted weekly amount, this amount being adjusted periodically in accordance with movements in the Consumer Price Index. Currently the amount is $84.40.

  1. Details of the number of pensioners who had telephones in (a) 1976-77, (b) 1977-78 and (c) 1978-79 are not available.
  2. and (5) Telecom provides a reduced rental concession to certain classes of charitable organisations. This concession, the cost of which is borne by Telecom, now applies to some1200 organisations representing revenue foregone of the order of $ 1.3m per annum. A further concession affecting many thousands of outback residents is the reduced rates for telegrams transmitted over the outpost radio network. The cost of this concession- about $0.45m annually- is borne by Telecom, as is also the 50 per cent concession on the standard charges applied by Telecom for the cabling of Housing Authority blocks of flats, and charitable organisations’ flats and dwellings.

The Commission has exercised its powers under Section 110 of the Telecommunications Act1975 to vary prescribed telecommunications charges on a number of occasions since July1 975. The powers have been used to: waive the connection fee for ex-Darwin subscribers who were victims of Cyclone Tracey and who desired to reestablish their service elsewhere (1975-76); reduce the private line connection fee for an individual lessee to overcome an anomaly in the connection fee schedule not previously encountered (1975-76); reduce or waive certain rental and installation charges for TV broadcasting or other organisations engaged in fund raising campaigns in return for Telecom promotional publicity (1976-77); and waive the additional annual rental of $24 for Touchfone telephones for certain classes of handicapped people who are in receipt of prescribed social security allowances (1977-78); reduce certain charges for promotional purposes such as the commemoration of the four millionth telephone etc

Unemployment in the Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 4789)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 9 October1979:

  1. 1 ) As the major employer in the Australian Capital Territory, employing 63 per cent of those Territorians actually in work, does the Government assume any responsibility for the unemployment rate in the ACT.
  2. Was the unemployment rate 6.4 per cent as at 26 September 1979.
  3. Is it a fact the rate is climbing towards a new record in January 1980.
  4. What action has the Government taken or will it take to ameliorate the level of unemployment in the ACT.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. and (4) The Government recognises that the public sector plays an important role in the economic and social well being of the ACT. It is pursuing policies directed at diversifying the economic base of Canberra and the subregion. It believes that the most rational and succesful strategy will be to diversify the ACT economy by providing opportunities for private enterprise to enter new areas of activity and to extend its production of goods and services in existing demand areas.

To this end the Canberra Development Board has been established and particular emphasis is being given to stimulate activity in the private tertiary sector.

The Government also believes that tourism to the National Capital should be encouraged. It is currently considering two large developments, one for a tourist complex and the other for an international standard hotel. If, as is hoped, these projects proceed they will involve substantial expenditure and create a significant number of jobs both during construction and in operation. With a view to encouraging tourism the Government has established a tourist office in Sydney.

The Government has implemented specific programs aimed at providing wider employment opportunities for all Australians. Examples include the special Youth Employment Training Program, the Education Program for Unemployed Youth, the Community Youth Support Scheme and related schemes. As the honourable member will no doubt be aware, my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, has recently issued details of further Government initiatives in this regard. These programs and initiatives are available to unemployed people in the ACT.

Employment in the ACT is expected to benefit from a combination of the scheduled Public Service Transfer Program and selective recruitment within existing Public Service staff ceilings.

The proposed supply and reticulation of natural gas to Canberra and the region will provide significant job opportunities in the Territory and enhance industrial and commercial development prospects.

  1. The Australian Statistician has advised that the unemployment rate in the Australian Capital Territory in September 1979 for persons looking for full-time work was 5. 1 per cent. The rate for all unemployed persons, including those looking for part-time work, was 5.6 per cent. These figures, which were obtained from the monthly labour force survey and are therefore subject to sampling variability, were published in the September issue of the ABS publication, Unemployment, Australia, Preliminary Estimates (6201.0) released on 11 October 1979, which also contains information concerning definitions, scope and timing of the survey, and sampling variability.
  2. ABS survey unemployment has shown a declining trend throughout most of this year and in October 1979 the level in the ACT was below that of a year ago. Normal influences during the next few months will most probably result in some seasonal increase in unemployment. However, no specific forecast of the expected level in January 1980 is available.

Defence Establishments: Alternative Employment Opportunities (Question No. 4814)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. Has he or his Department assessed the effect of changes in the location of certain defence establishments recently announced by the Minister for Defence in respect to installations at: (a) Marrangaroo, NSW; (b) Ettamogah, NSW; (c) Penrith, NSW; (d) Gladstone, SA; (e) Springhill, WA and (f) Maccrossan, Qld.
  2. What alternative employment opportunities exist in each area.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Employment prospects vary considerably according to age and occupation of the persons involved. It is not known at this time how many people will actually be displaced as a result of the changes, nor their categories of employment. For persons unable to be redeployed, normal Public Service redundancy provisions will apply.

Aboriginal Housing Organisations (Question No. 4819)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. How much rent from how many houses (a) was collected and ( b) should have been collected by each of the Aboriginal housing organisations at Toomelah, NSW, Mogo, NSW, Purfleet, NSW, Cowra, NSW and Roseby Park via Nowra, NSW in 1978-79.
  2. What sum has the Department of Aboriginal Affairs provided to each organisation to meet local government and public utility charges as a result of non-collection of rent.
  3. Do these funds come from the provision for expenditure under Grants-in-Aid- Housing; if not, under what budget item is it paid.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following supplementary information:

The answer to part (2) which appeared in Hansard, pages 3256-7 of 20 to 21 November 1979 was based on information available at that time. Financial returns since received for Roseby Park indicate that $5,848 was used to meet council charges.

Oil Exploration Expenditure (Question No. 4825)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 10 October 1 979:

  1. As he indicated in answer to my question No. 3436 (Hansard, 30 May 1979, page 2696) that details of petroleum expenditure by individual companies are provided to his Department on a confidential basis, is he satisfied with the level of petroleum expenditure by (a) BHP and (b) Esso in view of their huge profits from Bass Strait.
  2. Has he or his predecessors at any time discussed with BHP or Esso the question of the level of re-investment of their oil profits in oil exploration; if so, what was the nature of these discussions.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. ) and (2) The level of petroleum exploration is of major significance in the context of the Government’s energy policy. I have discussed this aspect with Esso/BHP from time to time and will do so in the future as appropriate.

Membership of Federal Authorities (Question No. 4829)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 October1979:

What age limits and length of service restrictions apply to eligibility for membership of (a) statutory corporations, (b) advisory committees and (c) boards and other organisations which are responsible to the Federal Government.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

Legislation establishing statutory authorities commonly specifies limits on length of service for members, although often with eligibility for reappointment. Such legislation also specifies maximum age limits in some instances, usually consistent with the Public Service maximum age limit of sixty-five years although sometimes 70 years for quasi- judicial appointments.

Should the honourable member be interested in pursuing details in respect of any particular statutory authorities, he may find it helpful to refer to the Second Report on ‘Statutory authorities of the Commonwealth’ presented by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on15 November 1979 (Senate Hansard, p. 2326). This report includes a listing of statutory authorities and their related legislation.

It is also common practice to indicate terms of appointment for members of advisory and other non-statutory bodies; in some cases maximum age limits are also applied.

In practice, the Government usually takes into account both age and term of appointment in all cases, particularly where appointees are approaching sixty-five years of age.

Pensioner Telephone Rebates (Question No. 4846)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. Are the guidelines of his Department or the Department of Social Security for pensioner telephone rebates published in leaflet or similar form for public distribution; if so, what are the points of distribution; if not, why not.
  2. Why was his Department in Queensland not able to furnish a copy of the guidelines to a telephone subscriber in Montville, Queensland.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Responsibility for the publication and distribution of information leaflets concerning the pensioner telephone rental concession rests with the Department of Social Security. However, I am informed that that Department does not issue guidelines for pensioner telephone rebates. It does, however, refer to them in two pamphlets ‘Age Pensions’ and ‘More help for Pensioners’, which are available in all its offices and, as well, Post Offices throughout Australia and other community outlets.

Horton Report on Public Libraries (Question No. 4850)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on10 October1979:

  1. Was the Horton Report on Public Libraries in Australia tabled in 1976.
  2. Is it a matter of concern to the Prime Minister that no action has been taken to implement the recommendations of that Report.
  3. Will action be taken in respect of this Report; if so, what action.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) I refer the honourable member to the Ministerial Statement on Assistance to Public Libraries I made on 13 November 1979 (Hansard, 13 November 1979, pages 2887 to 2889).

Refugees (Question No. 4864)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on11 October 1979:

  1. ) How soon after arrival are refugees who reach Darwin by boat granted permanent residence in Australia.
  2. Are these refugees (the boat people) able to sponsor a spouse; if so, how soon after arrival in Australia.
  3. Does the spouse or children of the refugee have any priority over other refugees in obtaining an entry visa to Australia, particularly if those dependants are in a refugee camp.
  4. Are children who arrive by boat able to sponsor their parents in refugee camps to come to Australia to reunite the families.
  5. What is the period of delay between the date of sponsorship and date of arrival of dependants of boat people compared to the delay for other refugees.
  6. How are children under the age of18 years who are separated from their parents, classified if they are (a) on their own, and ( b ) with a sibling over 21 years of age.
  7. Have any examples been brought to his attention of families being split in refugee camps during selection proceedings by Australian immigration officers; if so, what steps have been taken to reunite these families.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. ) There is no specific period of time. Each case is investigated fully and considered by the Committee on Determination of Refugee Status. The time required varies from case to case depending mainly on the time needed to complete investigations.
  2. Yes, but not until the refugee has been granted permanent resident status.
  3. Spouses and dependant children of residents of Australia receive priority over other prospective migrants, including other categories of refugees, for resettlement in Australia.
  4. Yes, but not until the refugee child has been granted permanent resident status.
  5. Sponsorships lodged by refugees who are granted residence status after travelling direct to Australia by boat, are processed in the same manner as those lodged by the other refugees. Statistics on average processing periods are not available.
  6. The principal distinction between accompanied and unaccompanied refugee children relates to their status under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act. A person under18 years not accompanying or joining a relative over 21 years comes within the ambit of that Act. A person under 18 years accompanying or joining a relative over 21 years who intends to care for him does not come under that Act and is regarded as the dependant of that person.
  7. While the Government’s refugee policy places strong emphasis on family reunion, the refugee outflow, by its very nature, produces situations where families are broken up and where relatives who are not always members of the nuclear family become grouped together.

Despite allegations that families have been split, in fact no nuclear families have been knowingly split.

There have been occasions where the presence of close relatives has not been apparent or not disclosed to selection officers at the time of interview. When these occurrences have come to notice action has been taken to reunite the families concerned.

Sale of Commonwealth Land (Question No. 4885)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on11 October 1979:

Further to his reply to pan (4) of my question No. 3880 (Hansard, 24 May 1979, page 2415) was the priority detailed adhered to in negotiations for the sale of all Commonwealth land during the last 4 years in the Electoral Divisions of Lillee, Stirling, Mitchell and Dundas.

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

All disposals of Commonwealth and Commonwealth Statutory Authority lands in the Electorates concerned proceeded in accordance with the normal order of priority earlier advised with the following exceptions:

two parcels of Commonwealth land in Stirling were sold on a priority basis to the City of Stirling for road widening purposes; and

surplus land of the Defence Service Homes Corporation which was offered first to persons eligible for a Defence Service Homes loan, and then to the general public as announced on 8 November 1978 by the then Minister for Administratives, Senator the Hon. F. M. Chaney and the then acting Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. R. V. Garland, M.P.

Health Insurance: Disadvantaged Persons (Question No. 4899)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on16 October1979:

  1. ) What was the estimated number of persons entitled to cover under disadvantaged persons health insurance arrangements at the time the scheme was introduced and how many have obtained the cover for each month since the scheme’s inception.
  2. What proportion of the estimated total number of eligible persons do these figures represent.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. ) At the time of the announcement of the disadvantaged patient arrangements in relation to bulk-billing in July1 978, it was estimated that up to 1.3 million to 1.4 million people might well consider themselves to be disadvantaged patients, and approach their doctor for application of the arrangements to them.

The following table shows estimates of the number of individual patients receiving one or more services under the disadvantaged patient arrangements in each month since their inception on 1 November 1978. It should be noted, however, that the figures represent the number of individual patients for each month, and any number of these patients may have received services in other months. Accordingly, these figures are not comparable with the 1.3 million to 1.4 million people referred to above.

  1. The original estimates were equal to approximately 9 per cent of the population. On the basis of a Departmental estimate, it appears that about half of the persons, who might well consider themselves to be disadvantaged patients, have availed themselves of the disadvantaged patient arrangements.

I would regard this as a very satisfactory outcome as numbers of the people who might have been eligible to be classified as disadvantaged patients by their doctors will have of their own volition adopted alternative arrangements should they have had the need to attend a doctor during this period. Apart from making their own health insurance arrangements, they can obtain services from community health centres, or from recognised hospitals as in-patients or out-patients.

Health Insurance (Question No. 4901)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, . upon notice, on16 October1979:

What proportion of the community in each State and in Australia is covered by (a) hospital insurance, (b) medical insurance, (c) pensioner health benefits (d) veterans repatriation benefits and (e) other health insurance, indicating the type of cover.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The following table shows the proportion of the population- as a percentage- in each State and Australia who were covered at 30 June1979 by: (a) hospital insurance; (b) medical insurance; (c) pensioner health benefits (d) veterans repatriation benefits; and (e) other health insurance in the form of ancillary benefits.

It should be noted that:

  1. ) The different types of coverage shown in the table are not mutually exclusive. For example, there may be persons covered by both pensioner health benefits and private medical and/or hospital insurance.
  2. In respect of persons covered for pensioner health benefits and Veterans’ Affairs benefits, statistics for the A.C.T. and the N.T. have been included under N.S.W. and S.A. respectively. They are not available separately, except in the case of P.H.B. pensioners (9141 for the A.C.T. and 7224 for the N.T.)
  3. Insured persons are classified by the State of registration of the organisations. Insured persons in the N.T. and A.C.T. are covered by organisations registered in the States.
  4. In the case of Veterans’ Affairs hospital and medical coverage, the statistics include those with full and partial entitlement.
  5. At 30 June 1979, there were 70,260 defence personnel eligible for medical and hospital care for whom a State break-up is not available. Some of these might also have family hospital and medical cover with organisations registered under the National Health Act.
  6. Information on the proportion of the population covered by plans operating outside the National Health Act is not available.
  7. At 30 June 1979, some individuals would have been eligible for free medical treatment as disadvantaged persons. Because such persons only become apparent at the time they are classified by their doctors as disadvantaged, statistics on the proportion of the population eligible to be classified by their doctors as disadvantaged are not available. However, it has been estimated that about5 per cent of the population could be covered by the disadvantaged arrangements.
  8. Australian residents without hospital insurance with a registered health insurance organisation are entitled to outpatients care and treatment without charge in standard ward accommodation by hospital doctors in recognised hospitals.

Health Insurance (Question No. 4902)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on16 October1979:

How many persons and what proportion of the community in each State, Territory and for Australia overall are covered by (a) basic medical insurance only at (i) single and (ii) family rate, (b) $50 a day hospital insurance only at (i) single and (ii) family rate, (c) full medical insurance only at (i) single and (ii) family rate, (d) $75 a day hospital insurance only at (i) single and (ii) family rate, (e) basic medical and $50 a day hospital insurance at (i) single and (ii) family rate, (f) basic medical and $75 a day hospital insurance at (i) single and (ii) family rate, (g) full medical and $50 a day hospital insurance at (i) single and (ii) family rate, (h) full medical and $75 a day hospital insurance at (i) single and (ii) family rate, (j) pensioner health benefits, (k) veterans’ (i) medical and (ii) hospital benefits and (l) other health benefits, stating the form of those benefits.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

From the available information, the following table has been drawn up showing the number of persons, and the proportion of the population in each State and for Australia as a whole, who were covered at 30 June1979 by:

basic medical insurance;

hospital insurance for shared ward hospital accommodation in a recognised hospital ($40 per day);

full medical insurance;

d ) hospital insurance for single room accommodation in a recognised hospital ($60 per day);

) pensioner health benefits;

veterans’ medical and hospital benefits; and

other health benefits in the form of:

) supplementary hospital cover other than $40 or $60 per day benefit tables;

medical optional (supplementary) tables without other medical insurance for schedule services;

ancillary benefits paid out of medical funds; and

ancillary benefits paid out of hospital funds.

It should be noted that:

) The different types of coverage shown in the table are not mutually exclusive. For example, there may be persons covered by both pensioner health benefits and private medical and/or hospital insurance.

In respect of persons covered for pensioner health benefits and Veterans’ Affairs benefits, statistics for the ACT and the NT have been included under NSW and SA respectively. They are not available separately, except in the case of PHB pensioners (9141 for the ACT and 7224 for the N.T.).

Insured persons are classified by the State of registration of the organisations. Insured persons in the NT and ACT are covered by organisations registered in the States.

In the case of Veterans’ Affairs hospital and medical coverage, the statistics include those with full and partial entitlement.

At 30 June 1979, there were 70,260 defence personnel eligible for medical and hospital care for whom a State break-up is not available. Some of these might also have family hospital and medical cover with organisations registered under the National Health Act.

Information on the proportion of the population covered by plans operating outside the National Health Act is not available.

At 30 June1979 some individuals would have been eligible for free medical treatment as disadvantaged persons. Because such persons only become apparent at the time they are classified by their doctors as disadvantaged, statistics on the proportion of the population eligible to be classified by their doctors as disadvantaged are not available. However, it has been estimated that about5 per cent of the population could be covered by the disadvantaged arrangements.

Australian residents without hospital insurance with a registered health insurance organisation are entitled to outpatient care and treatment without charge in standard ward accommodation by hospital doctors in recognised hospitals.

Racial Discrimination (Question No. 4912)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

Has the Government taken any action to resolve the legal and constitutional questions arising from the Queensland Government’s defiance of the Radial Discrimination Act 1975, as reported in the 4th Annual Report of the Commissioner for Community Relations; if so, what action; if not, why not.

Mr Viner:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

While the Commissioner for Community Relations has been advised, in two particular cases, that he was not empowered by the Racial Discrimination Act to require the attendance at a compulsory conference of State Ministers and officers, the Government is of the view that the Act operates generally throughout Australia according to its tenor.

The Government assumes that the Act is valid, and it would be for a person who disputed this to raise the question in the Courts.

Aboriginal Self -management: Yarrabah Reserve (Question No. 4913)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

  1. When did negotiations between the Federal and Queensland Governments commence regarding the Yarrabah Aboriginal Reserve and the request of the people of that community for self-determination under Federal control.
  2. What are the names, designations and salaries of the (a) Federal and (b) Queensland officials who have been involved in these negotiations.
  3. What was the (a) date and (b) location of each meeting held between officials of both Governments for the purpose of these negotiations.
  4. What negotiations have occurred at Ministerial level between the Federal and Queensland Governments and which Ministers have represented each Government at meetings held for this purpose.
  5. What was the (a) date, (b) location and (c) duration of each Ministerial meeting referred to in part (4).
  6. What other Aboriginal communities in Queensland have sought self-determination under Federal control following the passing of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities SelfManagement) Act1978.
  7. Will the Minister provide similar information to that sought in pans (2) to (5) in respect of all negotiations between the Federal and Queensland Governments in respect of any other Aboriginal communities in Queensland which have requested self-management by their own community.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The Yarrabah Council presented its petition to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on 2 February1979. The Regional Director, DAA, Queensland office, commenced consultation with his State counterpart on the following day.
  2. Discussions at an official level on Yarrabah have been in the context of meetings on consultative arrangements between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments in respect of Aboriginal affairs. The principal participants in these discussions have been:

Commonwealth:

Mr A. Griffith, Special Adviser, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Level 4, Second Division salary.

Mr D.O’Rourke, Regional Director, DAA, Level 1, Second Division salary.

Queensland:

Mr K. Spann, Secretary, Premier’s Department.

Mr P. Killoran, Director, Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement.

The salaries of the State officers are not within the Commonwealth ‘s j urisdiction.

  1. Brisbane, 8 March, 29 March, 4 April, 5 April,11 April, 30 April 1979.
  2. and (5) Ministers attended meetings at the times and locations specified below: 7 March1979, Canberra- Prime Minister, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Premier, Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs. 30 May 1979, Canberra-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Deputy Premier and Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs. 11 September1979, Canberra- Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Deputy Premier. 18 and19 October,1979, Canberra-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Deputy Premier. 29 October 1979, Brisbane-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Deputy Premier. 29 November 1979, Brisbane-Premier, Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Primary Industry and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.
  3. Cherbourg, Kowanyama, Mareeba, Mosman Gorge, Sweers Island and Woorabinda.
  4. As yet, there have been no substantive negotiations in respect of specific communities other than Yarrabah, Aurukun and Mornington Island.

Central Linen Services Complex, Mitchell, ACT (Question No. 4916)

Mr Sainsbury:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on16 October1979:

  1. ) With respect to the Central Linen Services complex at Mitchell, ACT, but excluding the operations of the Central Sterilising Unit, what was the (a) weight of linen laundered, (b) itemised total revenue received from laundering operations, (c) total (i) operating and (ii) fixed costs and (d) average number of staffemployed during1 978-79.
  2. What was the value of the building measured by (a) market value and (b) capital costs as at 30 June 1979.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. (a) 2,012,363 kg.

    1. Revenue received from non-Commission sources, $39,878.
    2. (i) direct operating costs, $850,742; (ii) indirect costs charged to the Central Linen Service, $412,190.

  2. (a) In the absence of any demand for such a facility the Office of the Commonwealth Chief Valuer has advised that a market valuation is not obtainable.

    1. Capital cost of building and equipment excluding steam and other shared services as at 30 June1979 was $4.0 16 million.

Foreign Fishing Vessels (Question No. 4925)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on17 October1979:

  1. ) Will licences held by foreign fishing vessels permitting access to Australia’s fishing zone cover permission (a) to engage in commercial fishing or fishing for purposes of scientific research, (b) to tranship or take on board any fish outfit or supplies while at sea, (c) to process fish at sea, (d) to transport fish from fishing grounds, (e) to provision, service, repair or maintain any other foreign fishing vessel while at sea, (f) to purchase or obtain bait outfits or supplies at an Australian port, (g) to effect repairs at an Australian port, (h) to purchase or land fish or fish products at an Australian port, (j) to unload, land, re-embark or tranship at an Australian port, any equipment of that vessel or of any other fishing vessel of the same flag State, (k) to grant shore leave to the crew of that vessel at an Australian port and (1) to discharge or take on board at any Australian port a member of the crew of that vessel or of any other vessel of the same flag State.
  2. Will fishing permits also include maps with specific regulations regarding the (a) areas to be fished, (b) species to be caught, (c) live weight of catch where appropriate, (d) description of the vessel, (e) ports proposed to be entered and (f) disposition of all or part of the catch.
  3. Have regulations been established regarding (a) the areas and seasons in which fishing is permitted or prohibited, (b) limitations on the number and size and type of vessels being used, (c) limitation on fish caught including the total quantity, species, size and sex, (d) a description of the fishing gear allowed or prohibited, (e) those pons from which foreign fishing may take place and (f) controls felt necessary on the distribution of the catch in order to maximise benefits to Australia.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) Licences issued under the Fisheries Act1952 permit foreign fishing boats to engage in commercial fishing operations only in the Australian fishing zone. The Fisheries Act1952 makes no provision for licensing of foreign fishing boats engaged in scientific research, however, foreign boats are, from time to time, approved to engage in such research in the Australian fishing zone (AFZ).

    1. No foreign fishing boat is permitted to tranship fish whilst at sea, whilst in the AFZ.
    2. Each licensed foreign fishing boat is permitted only to process fish taken by that boat
    3. Yes. Boats licensed to operate in the Australian fishing zone are permitted to transport their own catch.
    4. , (f), (g) The Fisheries Act1952 has no application in respect of these matters.
    5. The Fisheries Act, 1952 provides for the endorsement of boat licences to permit the landing of fish by foreign fishing boats. However, to date only 9 foreign boats (all of which are involved in feasibility fishing with Australian partners) have licences endorsed for this purpose. The Fisheries Act, 1952 has no application to the purchasing of fish by foreign fishing boats in a port. (j), (k), (l) The Fisheries Act, 1952 has no application in respect of these matters.

  2. Maps do not form part of the licence as they are generally regarded as unsatisfactory for enforcement purposes. However, licences issued in respect of each approved foreign fishing boat include:

    1. areas to be fished
    2. species to be caught
    3. live weight of catch (where appropriate)
    4. description of the vessel
    5. an endorsement listing approved ports of entry; and
    6. disposition of a percentage of the catch (where appropriate).

  3. (a) Yes. Regulations made under the Fisheries Act, 1952 for the Japaneselongline area were published on 1 November 1979. Similar regulations covering Taiwanese gillnetting and trawling operations are in the process of preparation. (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) The Fisheries Act, 1952 and the regulations made under that Act combine effectively to enable the Government to control the matters covered by these questions. More specifically, these matters are covered in bilateral agreements under which licences are granted to permit foreign fishing in the Australian fishing zone.

Government Departments: Television Sets (Question No. 4931)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. How many television sets does each Government department own or rent;
  2. How many are (a) black and white sets and (b) colour.
  3. What is the reason for choosing colour sets.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question, in respect of my Department, is as follows:

  1. The Department of Administrative Services own 35 television sets and does not rent any sets.
  2. There are 13 black and white sets and 22 colour sets. 10 of the colour sets are used by the Australian Information Service in conjunction with video cassette recorders and in some cases with portable video cameras; while some of these sets are capable of receiving television programs, they are used almost exclusively as training aids or working tools.
  3. As colour television transmissions have progressively replaced black and white transmissions in all States since March1 975 all television sets purchased since that time have been colour sets.

My Department does not hold records of television sets owned or rented by other Departments.

Dieback Disease in Eucalyptus Forests (Question No. 4951)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. ) What research has been carried out into the causes of dieback disease in the eucalyptus forests of the New England district of New South Wales.
  2. What has been the result of the research and what action is in train to overcome the disease in that district.
  3. What general information is he able to provide on the causes and incidence of dieback.
Mr Thomson:
Minister for Science and the Environment · LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. ) Research into the causes of eucalypt dieback in the New England region has been sponsored by the Working Group on New England Dieback formed in1976 with the approval of the New South Wales Minister for Conservation and Water Resources. The Working Group was convened by the Forestry Commission of New South Wales, and the membership comprised representatives of that body, the Department of Agriculture, University of New England, New England Regional Advisory Council, and the CSIRO Divisions of Forest Research and Entomology.

The Working Group surveyed the nature and distribution of the dieback problem and attempted to identify the cause or causes. Correlations were sought between dieback and various possible factors including insect attack, patterns of vegetation, soil type, topography, tree features, and land management practices. The Working Group arranged for experimental trials on control of the problem using insecticide injection into trees and the use of tree species with some degree of resistance to insect attack. The Working Group also studied scientific data on the interactions between eucalypts and leaf-eating insects gathered by scientists in other parts of eastern Australia. With the approval of the New South Wales Minister, the Working Group disbanded following completion of its terms of reference. Its activities have increased understanding of the dieback problem and helped to identify avenues for research.

Consequent upon the establishment of the New England Eucalypt Dieback Research Fund and Management Committee, the University of New England is planning a program of research on the problem supported by the Fund. Another move has been the formation of a co-ordinating committee by the North and North-West Regional Research Conference in New South Wales to co-ordinate dieback research in the New England region.

  1. The Working Group on New England Dieback concluded that the most likely immediate cause of tree death is repeated very heavy defoliation by a range of insect species, notably Christmas beetles and leaf beetles but also other species as well. No clear association was found between the incidence of dieback and site or environmental factors such as soil type, vegetation patterns, and topography although it was found that dominant, mature trees tended to be less severely affected than suppressed, immature trees.

Based on the Working Group’s trials with insect-resistant trees, the New South Wales Forestry Commission has issued a publication for graziers and the public suggesting species of trees that might be grown in place of those that have died. The Commission also has formulated recommendations for using insecticides to protect individual or small groups of trees. This method is not feasible for large-scale use over wide areas.

  1. Eucalypt dieback of the kind in the New England Region occurs elsewhere in the eastern States of Australia but is most severe in that region. There is some evidence to suggest that the problem is more severe at tableland altitudes than at lower altitudes. In New England, there is a greater variety of insect species attacking the trees than elsewhere. This form of dieback is not a problem in uncleared forests and woodlands, and is much less severe in the centre of a wooded area than around the perimeter. Dieback clearly bears a close relationship to farming and grazing, but more research is needed to understand that relationship and to indicate ways in which farming practices may have to be modified to alleviate the problem.

Australian Red Cross, Australian Capital Territory Division (Question No. 4969)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many salaried (a) full-time, ( b) part-time and (c) casual staff are employed by the Australian Red Cross, ACT Division.
  2. How many of those salaried staff are receiving superannuation payments, social security pensions, et cetera (e.g. ex-servicemen).
  3. What are the duties of (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) casual field or general service officers.
  4. In the social and welfare service, what percentage of Red Cross Calling (fund raising moneys) are actually used for these services, excluding administrative costs.
  5. How many salaried staff are employed to maintain meals-on-wheels, which is State Government subsidised.
  6. What amount of Government subsidy is provided for blood transfusion services.
  7. Who administers and controls this service.
  8. What does it cost to administer this service.
  9. Is blood which is donated in the ACT used only for services in the ACT.
  10. What percentage of blood donated would be classified as wastage.
  11. How many salaried (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) casual staff are employed in the Blood Transfusion Service.
  12. What percentage of Red Cross Calling money is used for this service.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

The Australian Red Cross, ACT Division is a community based charitable organisation, operating under Royal Charter (1941). Commonwealth moneys made available to the Society are in the form of ‘grants-in-aid’ and the Society is independent of any authorities responsible to me. For this reason the information sought in questions ( 1 ) to (5) is not available to me. However its Blood Transfusion Service works in close co-operation with the Capital Territory Health Commission and the information sought in respect of these activities is:

The arrangement between the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Red Cross Society provides for the Society to contribute ten per cent of all income received from donations and appeals towards the operating expenses of the Blood Transfusion Service up to a maximum of five per cent of the cost of the Service. The Commonwealth Government, through the Capital Territory Health Commission, funds the remainder of the Service costs in the ACT.

The Commission budget provisions for 1979-80 is $213,000.

7 ) The Australian Red Cross ACT Division.

See answer to pan (6) of the question.

The Service caters for the transfusion requirements of ACT residents, people living in areas of New South Wales adjacent to the ACT and residents of any other area ‘in an emergency.

In meeting this function, surplus blood and blood products occasionally result. When this occurs, the Service forwards the surplus to the New South Wales Division of the Australian Red Cross. There is a reciprocal arrangement whereby the ACT may draw on New South Wales stocks,

10) About one per cent of total units donated in 1978-79 would be classified as wastage, because of infection.

The ACT Blood Transfusion Service employs fifteen full-time and six pan-time salaried staff. In addition 125- volunteer staff work on a roster basis.

See answer to pan (6) of the question.

Energy Conservation (Question No. 4971)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister ‘s predecessor say in his address to the Australian Institute of Energy, Melbourne Group, on 12 October 1979, that in Government Departments and agencies significant measures are being taken in respect of (a) vehicle fleets, (b) buildings and (c) Government factories to conserve energy.
  2. If so, in respect of each of these categories (a) what measures are being taken and when were they initiated, (b) what energy forms are being conserved (c) what is the anticipated level of energy conservation and (d) what is the anticipated percentage of the energy use in question which these measures are expected to conserve.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) These observations were made by the former Minister for National Development in an address to the Institute on 12 October 1979.

  2. In 1979, the former Minister for National Development sought information from all. Commonwealth Ministers on liquid fuel consumption, conservation measures already implemented, the scope for further conservation measures, and the implications for their portfolios of arbitrary conservation goals.

    1. The conservation measures which departments and agencies had already taken were:

Vehicle fleets:

Administrative and operational controls to prevent the unnecessary use of cars and buses.

A policy to increase the use of smaller vehicles wherever possible. The number of 4-cylinder cars increased from 15.3% of the Commonwealth car fleet in 1976-77 to 34.2% in1978-79. This trend will continue as more cars become due for replacement. Stringent criteria must now be met to justify the purchase and use of 6-cylinder and larger vehicles.

Educations programs to train drivers in fuel-efficient driving techniques.

Evaluation and gradual implementation of fuel-saving technical improvements.

More attention to vehicle servicing and tuning procedures and schedules.

Evaluation and introduction of vehicles using alternative fuels. For example, conversion of vehicles in Melbourne and Canberra to run on LPG; testing of electric cars and small buses; evaluation of diesel-powered cars. Additional storage and fuelling outlets are being planned.

Measures aimed at better utilisation of vehicle stock to achieve lower fuel consumption per passenger.

Buildings: “Good housekeeping”. Education of staff in ways and means of saving energy (at this stage mainly aimed at electric lighting and heating).

Monitoring of building temperatures to achieve optimum comfort at the lowest fuel consumption levels.

Selective restrictions on operating times for oil-fired airconditioning and heating plant.

Factories and other plant:

Ongoing conversion of aircraft and munitions factories at St Mary’s, Footscray and Maribyrnong from furnace and diesel oil to natural gas or LPG has already led to a major reduction in liquid fuel consumption. Albion Explosives Factory is still to be converted.

Departments and instrumentalities also suggested a wide range of measures which they are currently investigating for future implementation.

Without a census of every department and agency it is not possible to state when each specific measure was initiated. Departments and agencies have introduced many conservation measures on their own initiative over some years. Some of the measures have had energy efficiency as the primary motive; with others, energy savings have occurred as an adjunct to the financial economy measures this Government has been implementing since it came to office.

  1. The primary goal of energy economy measures has been to reduce the consumption of petroleum-based liquid fuels, although more efficient use of all energy forms has resulted from efforts to exercise budgetary restraint without reducing the quality and extent of service.
  2. In view of the initiatives already taken by departments and agencies, and the many measures being actively considered for implementation in the near future, the Government does not intend to impose a universal energy conservation target at this state.
  3. At the time of the preliminary survey last year, departments had been able to make estimates of potential energy savings for only a small number of conservation measures.

These estimates ranged from as low as 2% for savings in defence service operations to a 44% reduction in departmental liquid fuel use from converting oil-fired factory plant. It is expected that as departments and agencies become experienced in the application of energy audits, estimates of savings from each specific measure will be readily available.

Unemployment Statistics (Question No. 4989)

Mr Young:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 24 October 1979:

  1. ) Has his attention been drawn to estimates by the Institute of Labour Studies that there was an increase in the numbers of those under-employed from 231,000 to 261,000 during 1978-79.
  2. Is it a fact that the percentage of the labour force under-employed increased from 2.57 per cent in November 1977 to 4.38 per cent in August1 978.
  3. Is it also a fact that a variation in the wording of the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey questionnaire adopted in February1978, resulted in many persons who were previously regarded as unemployed being classified as employed.
  4. Was the Government’s objective in varying the questionnaire a reduction in the number of those officially classified as unemployed; if not, what was the purpose of the change in the expression used with respect to the questions referred to in the article by Greg Hywood in the Financial Review of1 6 October1 979.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. Yes.

The Australian Statistician has supplied the following answers to parts (2), (3) and (4):

  1. The figures quoted were compiled by the Institute of Labour Studies. The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not provide estimates of underemployment as such, although data relating to certain aspects of underemployment are included in regular ABS labour force publications. The Institute compiled the figures referred to by selecting component items which it considered consistent with its definition of underemployment as ‘persons who do some work (so that they are not “unemployed”) but who would prefer to do more work (so that they are not “fully employed ‘) ‘.

The figures for November 1977 are not strictly comparable with those for August1978 mainly because, with the introduction of a revised questionnaire in February1978, the survey obtained particulars of persons working part-time who would have preferred to work more hours, instead of, as in earlier surveys, particulars of those who would have preferred to work full-time. Although both measures are included in the Institute’s estimates there is no reference to the change in coverage from February1978 onwards.

  1. Because of technical and operational complexities the precise effect of the introduction of the revised questionnaire could not be ascertained. Although the estimated number of employed persons increased there was also a substantial increase in the estimated number of unemployed persons.
  2. The revision of the labour force survey questionnaire was undertaken on the initiative of the ABS as pan of its ongoing review of statistical collections and the Government was not involved.

The objective in changing the questionnaire was to provide more accurate labour force information by improving the structure of the questionnaire and making some questions easier to understand and less likely to be misinterpreted. Further details of the objectives of the redesign and copies of the old and revised questionnaires are contained in the ABS information paper Questionnaires used in the Labour Force Survey (Catalogue No. 6232.0), issued on 17 March 1978.

In his article Mr Hywood referred to a change in the lead question from ‘Most of last week did you work at a job or business, or do something else?’ to ‘Last week did you do any work at all in a job, business or farm?’, but did not mention that in the old questionnaire the first question was followed by another which asked ‘Did you do any paid work at all last week or work without pay in a family business?’. The first question was merely a lead-in question which was not used to determine labour force status. It was omitted from the revised questionnaire because it tended to confuse some respondents whose labour force activity in the survey week was only a minor part of their activities during that week.

Mental Retardation Nurses (Question No. 4992)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 October1979:

  1. ) Are there any registered mental retardation nurses in the ACT.
  2. Is there any provision for registration of these nurses in the ACT; if not, why not.
  3. Is there a need for registered mental retardation nurses to be employed in hostels for mentally retarded patients in ACT.
  4. Are there any plans to train mental retardation nurses in the ACT.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. There is no requirement for registration of mental retardation nurses in the ACT.
  2. No. It is not a requirement of the Nurses Registration Ordinance.
  3. Nurses with additional qualifications in mental retardation are preferred provided other criteria for employment by the Capital Territory Health Commission are met.
  4. No. However, methods of introducing a psychiatric component in the Post Basic Community Nursing Associate Diploma program at the Canberra College of Advanced Education are under review.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Prices (Question No. 4997)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 24 October1979:

  1. Why is liquefied petroleum gas purchased for motor vehicles priced at 12.5c per litre, while LPG filled into a gas bottle is priced at 27c per litre.
  2. ) Are the prices charged for LPG regulated in any way.
  3. Are the pricing arrangements an imposition on the many tradesmen who use LPG in this form m their work; if so, what is the justification for this position.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. ) LPG sold in gas bottles is priced higher than that sold in bulk for motor vehicles because of the additional filling and handling costs involved.
  2. The maximum wholesale price at which bulk LPG is sold from refineries is that found justified from time to time by the Prices Justification Tribunal. There are no controls on the price at which LPG is subsequently retailed.
  3. The arrangements for pricing LPG at the retail level are subject to the competitive forces of the market and in this regard are no different from any other commodity.

Commonwealth Property in the Electoral Division of Fremantle (Question No. 5003)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:

  1. ) What (a) property and (b) other facilities are owned or leased by the Commonwealth Government in the Electoral Division of Fremantle.
  2. On what date was each property acquired or leased and from whom was it acquired or leased.
  3. What activity was carried out on property or facilities prior to purchase or lease by the Commonwealth Government, for what purpose was the property or facility purchased or leased and what activity was being conducted in those properties as at 24 October1979.
  4. On which property or facility does the Commonwealth Government pay for local government services.
Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1 ), (2), (3) and (4) The following tables provide relevant details of Commonwealth owned and leased properties and facilities in the Electoral Division of Fremantle.

In all cases of properties leased by the Commonwealth, rates, taxes and other local government charges are either included in the rental or are paid direct by the Commonwealth to the relevant authority. {:#subdebate-50-33} #### Commonwealth Office Accommodation in the Electoral Division of Fremantle (Question No. 5004) {: #subdebate-50-33-s0 .speaker-9E4} ##### Mr Dawkins: asked the Minister for Adminis trative Services, upon notice, on 25 October 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What office accommodation within the Electoral Division of Fremantle is currently occupied by Commonwealth Departments and which Departments are involved. 1. Which Departments are accommodated in (a) Commonwealth owned and (b) leased property and what is the area occupied. 2. What persons or organisations own the leased property. 3. Is new or additional office accommodation for Commonwealth Departments to be provided within the Electoral Division of Fremantle; if so, what are the details. 4. Is his Department to acquire land within the Electoral Division for Commonwealth Departments; if so, what are the details. 5. Has any decision been taken to erect a building to accommodate Commonwealth Departments withinthe Electoral Division; if so, what are the details; if not, is this matter under consideration. {: #subdebate-50-33-s1 .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1 ), (2) and (3) The following tables provide relevant details of Commonwealth occupied office accommodation in the Electoral Division of Fremantle. (4), (5) and (6) My Department is at present reviewing the Commonwealth's buildings with a view to developing an Australia wide accommodation strategy. The accommodation needs of Commonwealth departments in the Fremantle area will be considered in the context of this review. {:#subdebate-50-34} #### Fortescue Oil Field (Question No. 5006) {: #subdebate-50-34-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 25 October1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) What scientific data was used in the evaluation of the Fortescue oil field. 1. Which of this data was provided by Esso/BHP. 2. 3 ) What independent scientific evaluations were made by the Bureau of Mineral Resources. 3. Were any difficulties experienced by the Bureau in interpreting this data and in determining whether Fortescue is an oil field separate from previously discovered fields. 4. If so, was there any uncertainty in the Bureau's evaluation. 5. Which Government agencies or Departments, other than the Bureau, were involved in evaluating the Fortescue field. 6. What advice did these agencies and Departments give him on this matter. 7. What is the size of the Fortescue oil field. - {: #subdebate-50-34-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for National Development and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) to ( 5 ) See the Summary Report on the Classification of Oil in Fortescue Area by the Bureau of Mineral Resources, a copy of which has been made available to the honourable member by the Department of National Development and Energy. 1. and (7) None. 2. The initial recoverable reserves of the Fortescue Field at 30 September1979 estimated by Esso/BHP to be 44,500 megalitres of crude oil, 300 million cubic metres of gas and 2,100 megalitres of LPG. {:#subdebate-50-35} #### Medical Practitioner Statistics (Question No. 5028) {: #subdebate-50-35-s0 .speaker-00ATA} ##### Mr Hodges: asked the Minister for Immi gration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 6 November 1979: >What was the- > >increase in the number of medical practitioners from immigration; > >b) total loss of medical practitioners by emigration; and > >net gain of medical practitioners in Australia from immigration (i.e. excess of arrivals over departures) for 1978. {: #subdebate-50-35-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The following figures for calendar year1978 relate to permanent and long term movement of medical practitioners as described on migration forms, and may thus differ from the movement of those medical practitioners whose qualifications would be, or are recognised in Australia for purposes of registration and practice: > >gross settler arrivals of medical practitioners was 622. > >the total loss of medical practitioners by emigration was 326 comprised thus- 41 former settlers departed permanently 42 other residents departed permanently plus 243 net loss through long term movements of residents. > >the excess of arrivals over departures for medical practitioners was 296. > >Source: Settler Arrival Statistics: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. > >Other arrival and departure statistics; Australian Bureau ofStatistics. {:#subdebate-50-36} #### Transport: Rental Housing (Question No. 5033) {: #subdebate-50-36-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 November1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Who occupies the rental houses, flats and home units owned by the (a) Department of Transport, (b) Australian National Railways Commission, (c) Australian National Airlines Commission and (d) Qantas Airways Limited referred to in the answer to question No. 3932 *(Hansard,11* September 1979, pages 977-9). 1. On what basis are these dwellings allocated. 2. On what basis are the rentals levied on occupants calculated. 3. Do these rentals cover the costs incurred by the authorities referred to in part (1 ) in providing these houses; if not, what is the rationale behind the provision of housing at a rate below cost to each authority. {: #subdebate-50-36-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) The Department of Transport has two houses in the Australian Capital Territory, both situated at Canberra airport. Residence No. 1- this dwelling had been let to a Department of Transport groundsman who recently obtained alternate private accommodation. The residence has subsequently been let to an airport concessionaire. Residence No. 2- this dwelling is currently let to a Department of Transport groundsman. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Australian National Railways Commission has 6 houses and 2 flats in Canberra. The following officers presently occupy the respective houses and flats: Residence No. 1- Goods Shed Assistant; Residence No. 2- Shunter; Residence No. 3-Fettler; Residence No. 4- Public Transport Commission of NSW employee; Residence No. 19- Superintendent; Residence No. 20- Shunter; Flat No. 1- currently vacant; Flat No. 2-Checker. {: type="a" start="c"} 0. Australian National Airlines Commission has one house in Canberra. This house is currently on the market. It was previously let to the Australian National Airlines Commission Assistant Manager, ACT Branch. It was a condition of employment that this house be made available for the Assistant Manager. This condition of employment no longer applies. 1. Qantas Airways Limited has one house in Canberra. This house is occupied by the Qantas Manager, ACT Branch, and is provided as a condition of his employment. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. (a) Department of Transport- Applicants are assessed by a departmental Housing Committee taking into account marital status and number of children. In the case of Residence No. 1 at Canberra airport, there were no departmental employees needing accommodation at the time the house became vacant. As the department had a continuing requirement for the residence, the house was not declared for disposal to the Department of Administrative Services. It was not made available for officers of other departments as the house is not in a residential area and is situated on the airport. An approach was made to the Department by Budget Rent-a-Car Systems Pty Ltd one of the airport car rental concessionaires who under the terms of the airport car rental contract required space to be provided for its operations. As no office space in the terminal was available to Budget, the Department leased Residence No. 1 to Budget for a period of 5 years for use as an office, at a commercial rental much greater than the economic rental normally charged to departmental employees. 2. Australian National Railways CommissionApplicants are allocated houses by the Superintendent of the Australian National Railways Commission. The Commission endeavours to provide transferrable officers with staff residences and I understand the occasion has never arisen where a residence has not been available for a transferring employee. 3. Australian National Airlines Commission- Before the Australian National Airlines Commission residence was placed on the market, it was an automatic allocation to the person occupying the position of Australian National Airlines Commission Assistant Manager ACT Branch. 4. Qantas- The Qantas residence is an automatic allocation to the Qantas Manager, ACT Branch. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. (a) Department of Transport- Occupants are charged an economic rental assessed by the Department of Administrative Services on the following basis: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. an amortisation and interest factor of 0.054073 is applied to the cost of the improvements, 1. an interest rate of 5 per cent is charged on the capital expended to acquire and /or service the land, 2. a flat rate for repairs and maintenance of $364 a year is charged, 3. a flat rate for administration of $60 per year per dwelling is charged, 4. insurance premiums at the rates in use by the Director, Defence Service Homes are charged. 5. Australian National Railways Commission- Rental is assessed by the Australian National Railways Commission, taking into account the following factors: 6. the standard of accommodation provided, {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. the rental applied to similar accommodation in the area, 1. an amount enabling the Commission to receive a 6 per cent return on capital investment. 7. Australian National Airlines Commission- Rental of the Australian National Airlines Commission's only house was $50 per week before being placed on the market. Periodic reviews were made taking into account national wage increases. 8. Qantas Airways Limited- Rental of the house occupied by the Qantas' ACT Branch Manager is assessed at a rate of 10 per cent of the occupants salary. The present Manager pays $41 .2 5 per week. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Rentals charged by the Department of Transport and the Authorities referred to in part (1) applicable to the respective residences and flats are determined to recover capital costs and cover general maintenance. {:#subdebate-50-37} #### Legal Aid (Question No. 5035) {: #subdebate-50-37-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) Do some statutes such as the Trade Practices Act and the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, provide for the grant of legal aid to litigants under those Acts. 1. How many applications for this aid were there during the period 1 November 1978 to 7 November 1979. 2. What aid was given. 3. Is the provision in the budget estimates expected to cover applications. 4. Why is the handling of these grants dealt with in the Attorney-General's Department, rather than with a body such as the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission. {: #subdebate-50-37-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -- The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) A number of statutes provide for legal or financial assistance to persons in connection with proceedings under those Acts- see, for example, section 69 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, sections141 A, 141Band 168 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act1 904 and section1 70 of the Trade Practices Act1974. The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act1 974 does not so provide. 1. 70. 2. Assistance was authorized in relation to17 applications. The total value of that assistance was $67,125.74. Seven of the applications were withdrawn. 3. Yes. 4. Until guidelines for determining eligibility are finalised, it is preferable that the handling of applications be kept under the direct control of a Minister directly answerable to the Parliament. Apart from that consideration, the Commission may not be able to handle all such applications having regard to the fact that the applications frequently call for urgent attention, which the Commission cannot give because it does not meet sufficiently often. {:#subdebate-50-38} #### Quarantine: Bodies of Deceased Persons (Question No. 5042) {: #subdebate-50-38-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, On 7 November1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What quarantine rules are applied to bodies of deceased persons arriving in Australia for burial. 1. Are they enforced. 2. How do they differ from the rule regarding the shipment of bodies for burial overseas. {: #subdebate-50-38-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The importation of the body of a deceased person is prohibited under Quarantine Proclamation 70G unless: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. the permission in writing of the Director of Quarantine to import the body is produced to the Collector of Customs; and 1. the body is accompanied by an official copy of an official certificate of death, or an official extract of an entry in an official register, in respect of the death. 1. Yes. 2. For bodies shipped for burial overseas, a certificate is issued by my Department stating that there were no quarantinable diseases in the Commonwealth of Australia during the preceding twenty-eight days. {:#subdebate-50-39} #### Immigration: Dependent Children (Question No. 5044) {: #subdebate-50-39-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) On a country of origin basis how many applications for entry to Australia relating to dependent infant children of persons living in Australia were rejected during (a) 1975, (b) 1976, (c) 1977, (d) 1978 and (e) 1979 to date. 1. In how may of the cases was the existence of the dependent child or children disclosed at the time of the application of the parent for entry to Australia. 2. ) What were the chief grounds for rejection. {: #subdebate-50-39-s1 .speaker-0I4} ##### Mr MacKellar:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (2) and (3) No statistics are maintained by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs relating to such matters. Dependent infant children legally in the custody of persons holding resident status in Australia are refused entry for residence only under the most exceptional circumstances. The numbers of such children are believed to be small. Those excluded would largely be children whose existence was concealed by the parent or parents at the time of the entry of the latter. There are occasional cases involving a child with a communicable disease likely to threaten Australian public health. Refusal in such cases is normally maintained only until the condition has been cured or brought within sufficient control to eliminate the threat to Australian public health. {:#subdebate-50-40} #### Biophysics (Question No. 5049) {: #subdebate-50-40-s0 .speaker-KH4} ##### Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 November1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that biophysics has developed in the last 20 years as one of the most productive and innovative areas of medical research, as measured by the number of Nobel Prizes for Physiology or Medicine awarded to biophysicists. 1. How many chairs of biophysics exist in Australia and in what universities. 2. What current research in biophysics is being carried out in Australia. {: #subdebate-50-40-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) Biophysics can loosely be defined as the application of the methods and theory of physics to biological systems. When considered as a field of medicine it has increased significantly in the past 20 years. This has resulted from an unprecedented growth in basic scientific knowledge and technology during this period. It is difficult to accurately list the Nobel Prizes for physiology and medicine that have involved this discipline, since the categorization is an arbitrary one. It is possible, however, to recognise four awards which could be considered in this light These are: 1962- M. H. F. Wilkins, University of London. 1 963- **Sir Andrew** F. Huxley, University of London. 1967-G. Wald, Harvard University, U.S.A. 1970- J. Axelrod, National Institutes of Health, U.S.A. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. In Australian universities there are no chairs specifically designated as 'biophysics'. There are many chairs of which the occupant is active in this field, but the title of the chair is associated with related disciplines such as biochemistry and chemistry. 1. I am unable to list the research projects involving biophysics in Australia. A significant number of projects are supported by either the National Health and Medical Research Council or the Australian Research Grants Committee which could either directly or indirectly be classified as biophysics research, and no doubt funds are also available from other sources for this type of research. However due to the difficulty in specifically placing a project into the category of biophysics, I am not able to provide the information sought by the honourable member.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 February 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800220_reps_31_hor117/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant