House of Representatives
19 March 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 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 901

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N. A. Brown, Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Fisher, Mr Lusher and Mr Martyr.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Birney and Mr Kerin.

Petitions received.

Taxation

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament will:

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

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

Petition received.

Refugees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system, and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petition received.

Dr Bernard Kessell

To Mr Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Western Australia:

Call upon the Government to commute the sentence of 3 years imprisonment imposed on Dr Bernard Kessell to a Community Service Order.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration.

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

Petition received.

Olympic Games

To the Right Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of the sportsmen and women and citizens of Australia respectively showeth that:

Valuing the Olympic movement as an historic expression of all that is worthwhile in human endeavour and conscious of the important role competitive sport plays in maintaining health and the spirit of achievement in everyday life.

Honouring the high principles consistently pursued by the international Games Administration of keeping the movement free from religious, racial and political considerations.

Realising that the Olympic movement owes its resilience and very existence to the citizens of the nations from whom spring the participants in the contests and that the survival of this movement is the cherished hope of all communities.

We the undersigned sportsmen and women and citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this humble petition respectfully pray that the Australian government do all in its power to ensure the participation of a full Australian contingent in the XXII Olympic Games to be held in Moscow, USSR, from 1 9 July to 3 August 1 980.

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

Petition received.

page 902

OIL INDUSTRY DISPUTE

Notice of Motion

Mr NEIL:
St George

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

That the House notes that the petrol dispute is a matter of great public interest and that it was the subject of a secret agreement between the parties following negotiations presided over by the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The House is therefore of the opinion:

1 ) That secret agreements are contrary to the usual principles of public exposure of the decisions of courts or tribunals;

that there should be strict time limits for the operation of secret agreements following which they shall automatically become public; and

3 ) that the terms and conditions of all secret agreements should be immediately forwarded by the Commission to the Minister.

page 902

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Kevin Cairns proceeding to give a notice of motion-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will have to redraft his notice of motion. He is giving his reasons for moving the notice of motion rather than stating the proposition.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

-I now make the request of the House for leave to redraft the notice.

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is too late.

page 902

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 902

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: LONG SERVICE LEAVE

Mr INNES:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has placed an embargo on the taking of long service leave, except in exceptional circumstances, until the end of the financial year as a money saving measure? Has this measure been taken because the ABC is experiencing some financial difficulty at present? Will the Minister tell the House what action he has taken or will take to alleviate that situation?

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

– I am not aware of the matters raised by the honourable member. If the ABC faces difficulties in the performance of its basic functions- I would have thought that long service leave was a fairly basic function in any organisation- it is always open to it to argue at the time of Additional Estimates or at the time of ordinary Estimates that it needs extra funds. We are always open to such approaches and I repeat the claim that if there is a difficulty in an organisation such as the ABC pursuing its normal activities we will hear from it to that effect, and we will listen sympathetically.

I would like to say that the Government has taken a number of decisions in recent times with respect to the ABC which ensure that at the very least the ABC receives an inflation adjusted amount to cope with rises in the cost of living. That is the basis on which discussions about the ABC’s annual financial situation begin these days and will begin for a period ahead. We have also provided that the ABC will be able for the first time to retain extra earnings above a certain amount which it makes through the sale of its own product, and that of course is an incentive for creative activity and for the ABC to produce more of its own programs. As I said, I am open to approaches from the ABC if it believes its priorities are such that it needs to approach the Government about these matters.

page 902

QUESTION

NATIONAL DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAM

Mr SHORT:
BALLARAT, VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Health: Is it a fact that in recent years the Federal Government has provided funds to State governments under the National Drug Education Program for use in drug education programs? Is it also a fact, however, that these funds are not permitted to be used for drug rehabilitation purposes and that even in the area of education they are not permitted to be used in relation to alcohol as distinct from drugs? If my understanding on these points is correct, will the Minister explain to the House the reasons for these restrictions? In view of the great national importance of these issues- the fact that effective drug education cannot be divorced from drug rehabilitation and the fact that in both education and rehabilitation drug abuse cannot be realistically separated from alcohol abuse- I ask whether the Minister and the Government will give urgent consideration to removing from the conditions for the use of the relevant Federal funds the two major restrictions to which I have referred.

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

-As the honourable member for Ballarat would know, the National Drug Education Program, which has been operating since 1970-71, aims at assisting all sections of the community, in particular young people, to develop healthy and discerning attitudes towards all drugs. We believe very strongly that education about drugs is terribly important for the overall wellbeing of the community. Commonwealth funds for drug education have been provided annually for distribution to the States. Allocations are assessed each year in line with the demonstrated needs which are set out in programs submitted to the Commonwealth and State drug education authorities. This financial year the Commonwealth has appropriated $59m for projects approved under the Community Health Program and within that program of approved projects there are -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, is it appropriate for me to move that the Minister table or incorporate the statement he is reading?

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– Within the program of approved projects located in the various States are 37 projects which relate specifically to prevention, treatment or rehabilitation in the fields of alcoholism and drug abuse. Of these projects, 22 are conducted by State agencies and 15 by voluntary organisations. This financial year the Commonwealth will provide approximately $6m for these projects on a 50-50 basis with the States.

I think it should be noted that the activities of a substantial number of projects provide general community health services which encompass alcohol and drug abuse. So, the level of funds available under the Community Health Program may not cover some of the situations which the honourable member has brought forward, but I can assure him that the Government gives wholehearted support for the very commendable efforts of voluntary organisations whose projects are aimed at providing, particularly for young people, educational facilities and opportunities to understand and to take special note of the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse. If there are any specific aspects which the honourable member would like me to look at I would be very happy to do so.

page 903

QUESTION

HEALTH FUNDS

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question also is directed to the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that health funds in Queensland and Tasmania have been unable to pay their obligations to contributors and that another fund in Victoria is about to go into liquidation? In view of the fact that Commonwealth Government actuaries have approved the contribution rates very recently, will the Government accept an obligation to meet the claims of contributors on these funds?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

-As the honourable gentleman will be aware, it is not the usual procedure for Commonwealth Ministers for Health to comment on rumours about the financial status of various health funds. I have heard some rumours relating to a fund operating in Victoria. I do not propose to add to that speculation. There are other opportunities for people to insure themselves with health funds and those opportunities continue.

page 903

QUESTION

MELBOURNE WATERFRONT

Mr ALDRED:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Administrative Services as it relates to his responsibility for the Australian Federal Police. In relation to current allegations of ghosting of the Australian National Line payroll by members of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia, is the Minister aware that, under current operating procedures, the Federal Police is unable to investigate activities affecting a Federal department or a statutory authority unless specifically requested to do so by the Minister responsible or by the management of the organisation concerned? As any police investigation of ghosting on the Melbourne waterfront could well reflect on the competence of the ANL management and thus make it highly unlikely that it or the recently established interdepartmental committee would request such investigation, will the Minister personally consider whether the Federal Police should investigate this matter without delay? Will the Minister also consider allowing the Australian Federal Police in future to investigate matters on its own initiative without needing a formal request from the Federal department or statutory authority concerned?

Mr John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I undertake to discuss this matter with the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and to give it consideration.

page 904

QUESTION

PENTACHLOROPHENOL

Mr HUMPHREYS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Science and the Environment aware of recent reports in the January 1980 edition of the respected scientific journal Nature that the widely used wood preservative pentachlorophenol, which is also used as an insecticide and pre-harvest defoliant, contains as an impurity very toxic dioxins which are closely related to the dioxins found as impurities in 2,4,5-T? Can the Minister provide information on measures taken by the Federal Government to control the amount of dioxins in PCP and advise also on measures taken to monitor the sale and use of PCP throughout Australia?

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

-I am not aware of the article referred to by the honourable member. This matter falls largely within the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Health. However, I will undertake to investigate it and to let the honourable member know as soon as I can the answer to what is a very complex question.

page 904

QUESTION

MELBOURNE WATERFRONT

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

-My question is directed to the Minister for Industrial Relations. In view of an article in the Bulletin and an item in the television program 60 Minutes, when does the Government intend to implement the recommendations contained in the Royal Commission into Alleged Payments to Maritime Unions, better known as the Sweeney report, which was tabled in this Parliament in April 1976? Is the Government concerned about the alleged crimes of thuggery, blackmail and murder said to be rife on the Melbourne waterfront and in particular relating to the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia? Is the Minister aware of the activities? What action does the Government intend to take to restore law and order in this area?

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

– The major recommendations of the Sweeney report relating to accounting, auditing and reporting of the financial affairs of industrial organisations of employers and employees was originally the subject of legislation brought into this House about two years ago. Since then a great deal of detailed work has been done, particularly in a tripartite subcommitteeI pay tribute to its work- of the National Labour Consultative Council, towards drafting regulations to give effect to that legislation.

As the House will be aware, a week or so ago I introduced further amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which were found necessary as a result of that detailed examination. Those amendments cover the majority of the Sweeney recommendations. The original reason for setting up the royal commission, as the honourable member has pointed out, was the alleged payments to maritime unions. His Honour made a recommendation that such payments be prohibited by law.

This is an extremely complex matter. It has been the subject of detailed investigation by several departments. In other words, legislation will probably not be able to be confined to one area. The Government is at the moment considering how best to give effect to the final recommendation of Mr Justice Sweeney. As soon as it is in a position to provide effectively for the prohibition which he recommended, legislation will be brought into this House.

page 904

QUESTION

DRUGS: COASTAL SURVEILLANCE

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

-I refer the Minister for Transport to the very strong criticism of coastal surveillance arrangements which was contained in the report of the Williams royal commission. I ask: Did his predecessor announce in December of last year the offer of contracts worth about $10m to three firms for the operation of seven Nomad aircraft on coastal surveillance in northern Australia? Did the former Minister say that the first of these aircraft would begin operations in early 1 980? If so, how many of these seven aircraft are now in operation? When will the remainder be brought into service?

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

– I will contact the surveillance headquarters here this afternoon and will give the honourable member a report later in the day.

page 904

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK OF AUSTRALIA

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

-Can the Treasurer assure the House that with the increase in interest rates announced yesterday by the Primary Industry Bank of Australia, adequate funds will be made available to that bank to maintain lending? I ask this question in the light of current drought conditions throughout many areas of Australia and having in mind the volume of income equalisation deposits held by the Government.

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

– I welcome the question about the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. It gives one an opportunity of reminding the House that this bank, which has been in operation for a mere 16 months, has already refinanced loans in excess of $200m to almost 3,000 primary producers throughout Australia. In other words, the bank has been an unqualified success and implements a proper and long standing aspiration of the great bulk of Australia’s primary producers. The interest rate rises which are on both sides of the ledger and which were announced yesterday by the bank merely reflect what has occurred with other interest rates throughout the community in recent times.

The honourable member’s question also gives one the opportunity of remarking again that so far the rise in interest rates in this country has been extremely subdued compared with what has taken place in other countries. The purpose of increasing the borrowing rate by PIBA is to make sure that adequate funds will continue to be made available by the subscribing public. The honourable member and the House generally will be aware that because of the action taken by the Government to make available lower interest funds through the use of income equalisation deposits, the interest rate is indeed lower than may otherwise have been the case.

Although the honourable gentleman will understand my traditional reluctance to commit the Government in advance to precise attitudes in these areas, he will understand that the Government regards the continued success of the Primary Industry Bank, having regard to the need for it to operate on a proper commercial basis, as a very important policy objective of the Government.

page 905

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister and I refer to his statement this morning on Sydney radio:

We are going to support the law and we are going to support the private interests of Australians.

Mr Speaker, the law was section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. I ask the Prime Minister: Is it not a fact that section 45D has been proved to be bad law in that the two disputes that have occurred under it, namely the Gorman dispute in Victoria and the Laidely dispute in New South Wales, have had to be settled outside the judicial tribunal which the law provides, and settled by Mr Justice Moore using his talents as an industrial arbiter?

Mr Neil:

-What talent?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I note the interjection What talent?’. Is it not a fact that if Mr Justice

Moore were clothed with the appropriate legal powers to use under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act he would have been able to have a conference with all the parties on a proper legal basis and thereby achieve a settlement without paralysing the two States concerned? Accordingly I ask: Will the Prime Minister now act in accordance with the request of the Australian people to give to Mr Justice Moore the necessary powers to settle industrial disputes rather than have personal confrontation exacerbated by the Prime Minister?

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

-There are some assumptions in the honourable gentleman’s question which may well not be accurate. When Mr Wran said that he wanted a referendum on whether industrial powers should be placed in the hands of the Commonwealth he was ignoring the fact that there are very direct powers in the hands of the New South Wales Government which were very relevant to the oil industry dispute but which the Premier was totally unprepared to use. Indeed, when the New South Wales Government used powers for the emergency distribution of petrol those entitled to buy under the emergency procedures were approved not by the New South Wales Government but by the Transport Workers Union. That would seem to me to be an abdication by government in a very important matter. If a government in a State that is charged with some responsibilities towards its own people is prepared to abdicate its responsibilities in that way, clearly that State will be open to the kind of blackmail that the Transport Workers Union has in fact pursued.

The honourable gentleman ignores the fact that section 45D has been used in relation to a number of disputes, and that in a number of disputes it has been highly successful. In the Utah dispute over coal exports the section was used, and used with effect. There are other disputes in which it was used. Of course, a large part of what the honourable gentleman has to say on this matter is governed, as I understand it, by the decisions of the Adelaide Conference of the Australian Labor Party, which bind every member of the Opposition and, as I understand it, members of the Labor Party in the States, including Mr Wran. Against that background it needs to be understood that the Adelaide Conference decided that all pains and penalties should be taken off unions for breaches of the law and that they should be given the authority to operate in an unbridled fashion against the best interests of Australians. Indeed, the Adelaide Conference made it perfectly plain that the Australian Labor

Party had moved far, far to the Left, as was again evidenced by votes this morning.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Some honourable members on the Opposition side are laughing but there are others who are very far from laughing right at this moment. That Adelaide Conference of the Australian Labor Party made it perfectly plain that Australian trade unions would be placed above and beyond the reach of the law. It is not surprising, therefore -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is far too much noise from my left.

Mr Hayden:

– Every absurdity has its champion. Look at him!

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition knows better than to interject in that fashion. I ask honourable members on my left to remain silent.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-This House needs to understand and the Australian people need to understand that at the Adelaide Conference of the Labor Party a conscious decision was taken to remove the actions of Australian trade unions from any pains or penalties under the law and to remove all restraints from trade union behaviour. If the Australian Labor Party takes the view that bodies as powerful as modern trade unions with annual incomes of up to $10m should be allowed to exert an uninhibited power within the Australian community without any restraint of law whatsoever, that is not a view that is shared by honourable members on this side of the House. Against that background, I regret that the honourable gentleman might well be part of a minority in relation to some matters and that he might not share that sentiment. However, he also is bound by the policy.

page 906

QUESTION

WOOL INDUSTRY DISPUTE: TAX PAYMENTS

Mr SAINSBURY:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Treasurer. He will be aware of the grave effects on thousands of Australian working people in country areas of the recent industrial anarchy by some sections of the Storemen and Packers Union of Australia. Has the Treasurer received representations from the National Farmers Federation in relation to hardship to many of those people in paying tax assessments that are shortly to become due? Will he consider waiving penalties for late tax payments in cases of individual hardship? Will the Treasurer also consider the additional problem of producers being caught with two incomes next year- 1980-81- whereas they would normally be caught with one income in each of the years 1979-80 and 1980-81?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-I think that the honourable gentleman will be aware that the administration of the Income Tax Assessment Act and therefore the matters under existing law of the remission of penalties and extensions of time for payment of tax are not matters that come within my personal discretion; rather they come within the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation. I should inform the House that last week, during my absence, my colleague the Minister for Finance, who was then Acting Treasurer, had some discussions with the Commissioner of Taxation on financial problems that wool growers might experience as a result of the storemen and packers industrial dispute. We were informed by the Commissioner that he is very aware, as indeed is the Government and all members on this side of the House- I hope that honourable members on the other side are equally aware- that problems could arise. His branch offices have been asked to grant wool growers who have not received payment for their clips appropriate additional time for payment of tax.

Accordingly, wool growers who are adversely affected by the storemen and packers dispute and who are thus unable to pay their income tax in full by the due date notified in their assessments should make individual applications for additional time to the taxation offices at which they lodge their returns. The Commissioner has informed the Government that these applications will receive, as is appropriate, sympathetic consideration. Where extensions of time are granted through inability to pay tax, taxpayers can be quite confident that additional tax accruing will be remitted in full provided they adhere to the terms of the extension. I might point out to the honourable gentleman that it is not a novel situation in cases of proper hardship for extensions of time to be granted and remissions of penalties to be given.

The proceeds of auctions carried out in 1979-80 will be assessable as 1979-80 income, even though the cheque in payment may be received after 30 June. Any delay in shipping wool auctioned before 30 June will not affect tax liability. In the case of wool that is affected by the dispute and not auctioned by 30 June, the fact that the value of the wool can be included in the 1979-80 income year will ameliorate the problem. In any event, those affected will be able to take advantage of the averaging provisions which exist for primary producers.

page 907

QUESTION

MELBOURNE WATERFRONT

Mr MORRIS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Transport relates to two earlier questions raised on this subject. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to media reports of wages allegedly being paid to fictitious persons on the payroll of the Australian National Line for which he has ministerial responsibility? If it has, what investigations has he initiated in respect of those payments and what has been the result of the investigations? If the matter has not been drawn to his attention, will he undertake to get copies of the reports and to initiate an urgent investigation into the allegedly fictitious payments?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I am aware of the media reports in relation to alleged activities of the painters and dockers, particularly at the Williamtown naval base. The Bulletin articles on which most of the media coverage was based contained a number of allegations concerning the activities of members of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia in Melbourne and of the management and officials of the Australian National Line. I spoke to the Chairman of ANL this morning on his return from Japan. I have asked him and his Acting Chairman to submit to me a full report on the allegations concerning the Line, its management and officials. Of course that report will be considered when it comes to hand.

I understand that the Chairman of ANL will talk to the Commissioner of the Federal Police in the course of this day. If there is any evidence to support the allegations, the proper course is for those matters to be referred to the police authorities for investigation. If there is evidence which goes beyond criminal activities and matters which involve State governments, State authorities and a State police force, of course we would discuss the matter with the State authorities concerned and take whatever action was necessary.

The General Manager of ANL has rebutted the allegations in a letter to the Bulletin and he has provided me with the text of that letter. The House may be interested in its contents. I seek leave to have that letter incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

The Editor The Bulletin’ 54 Park Street Sydney NSW 2000

Dear Sir,

There appeared in the edition of your magazine of March 19, 1980 an article titled ‘How the Government Condones Waterfront Graft’.

I have had investigated the allegations contained in the article that ANL is making ‘Ghosting’ payments to painters and dockers employed by the Line in Melbourne. Those allegations are simply not true. The Line has secure and detailed procedures relating to work payments to all its employees, including painters and dockers. According to our records, wages payments have been made to painters and dockers for hours actually worked and to those persons who have performed that work.

Insofar as the photographs accompanying the article are concerned, the actions depicted are simply and innocently explained and do not support the construction attempted to be placed on them.

Contrary to your allegation, ANL management does not condone criminal activities by any of its employees. If anyone can produce to the Line substantiated evidence that fraud or criminal activities are taking place over which the Line has control or responsibility, we will take strong and immediate action to see that such activities cease. I would also suggest that such evidence be immediately placed in the hands of the police.

It is a pity that the Line was not given the opportunity prior to publication to reply to and correct the many inaccuracies that are contained in the article. We repeatedly requested that we be afforded that opportunity, but this was denied us. The only prior advice we received on the content of the article was that some portions of a previous draft were read over the telephone to Mr Welch for comment. That earlier draft appears to have been substantially changed prior to publication.

In relation to the quotations attributed to myself and Mr Welch, to the best of our recollection these were made in a different context and in any event are not accurate of what either of us said.

We will be taking these matters further in another forum, but I would be obliged if you would publish this reply in your next edition for the benefit of your readers.

Yours faithfully,

L. MORGAN

General Manager

Mr HUNT:

-If you do not mind, Mr Speaker, I will read the last three paragraphs of that letter:

It is a pity that the Line was not given the opportunity prior to publication to reply to and correct the many inaccuracies that are contained in the article. We repeatedly requested that we be afforded that opportunity, but this was denied us. The only prior advice we received on the content of the article was that some portions of a previous draft were read over the telephone to Mr Welch for comment. That earlier draft appears to have been substantially changed prior to publication.

In relation to the quotations attributed to myself and Mr Welch, to the best of our recollection these were made in a different context and in any event are not accurate of what either of us said.

We will be talcing these matters further in another forum, but I would be obliged if you would publish this reply in your next edition for the benefit of your readers.

Yours faithfully,

L. MORGAN

General Manager

If there is any further action on this matter, of course I will report to the House.

page 908

QUESTION

TELECOM AUSTRALIA: TELEGRAMS

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Is the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware of Telecom Australia’s recent announcement of a profit in excess of $ 100m? Does the Minister recall Telecom’s policy decision a few years ago to discourage people deliberately from sending telegrams by pricing them out of the reach of even the above-average income earner? Has the Minister been to any weddings in recent times and witnessed at first hand how the traditional greetings by telegram have been almost totally eliminated as a direct result of Telecom’s decision? Will the Minister personally request Telecom more than seriously to consider the introduction of a special low cost rate for greeting telegrams sent, say, three days prior to a wedding, a 2 1st birthday, an anniversary or other important occasion, thus making possible the revival of a pleasant custom that Telecom alone has destroyed?

Mr STALEY:
LP

– The honourable member has made a very nice suggestion. I will ask Telecom to consider it. I am sure we all know that he asks this question out of genuine concern for all Australians and particularly those who are about to be married, and not because he is to be married on 3 May. I am sure the House would wish the honourable member a great deal of joy, a tremendous number of telegrams and perhaps another great cake.

page 908

QUESTION

MR JUSTICE STAPLES

Mr HAYDEN:

-I ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls a question from the honourable member for Lyne yesterday as follows:

I ask the Prime Minister: In light of the statement by Mr Justice Staples as reported in the media, has the Prime Minister given consideration to that gentleman ‘s future?

He will recall answering:

I was interested to listen to AM this morning. But the substantive answer to the honourable gentleman’s question is no.

Has he noted in this morning’s Age a report to the effect that an approach was made on behalf of the Government to Justice Staples proposing that he should accept an appointment to the Law Reform Commission and that he declined the offer? Is he aware that the Attorney-General,

Senator Durack, in response to a question in the Senate has just answered to the effect that the report in the Age is correct? I ask whether he is aware that Senator Durack went on to say this:

The position is that as a result of discussions within the Government-

Let me restate that- as a result of discussions within the Government, I did take steps to make inquiries as to whether Mr Justice Staples would be interested in an appointment to the Law Reform Commission.

Was the Prime Minister telling the truth yesterday when he denied that he had been giving any consideration to the future of Justice Staples, or was that a misrepresentation and a deception of the Parliament? If not, is Senator Durack responsible for such deception?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Leader of the Opposition is guilty of trying to perpetrate a deception within the question itself. Mr Speaker, I was asked yesterday by the honourable member for Lyne whether, as a result of Mr Justice Staples’ statements which had been made within the previous 24 hours, I had given any thought to Mr Justice Staples ‘ future. The answer to that question was completely accurate. The answer was no. Of course, some days earlier Senator Durack had discussed with me, and other members of the Government, the advisability of offering Mr Justice Staples a position on the Law Reform Commission. The Leader of the Opposition might well know and understand that the report in the Age this morning appeared as a result of an instruction given to my Press officer. I regret only that it did not go out under my name, as it should have, instead of under the name of ‘ a Government spokesman’. After being asked about the matter I had instructed that the full details of that earlier situation, which was in no way related to Mr Justice Staples ‘ outburst on AM ox whatever else, should be made public.

page 908

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Mr YATES:
HOLT, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Leader of the House. Among the motions to be debated in the House is one in which I call for the Federal Government, in co-operation with all the States, to establish a royal commission on trade union law and practice and employer organisations. Can the Leader of the House tell me, and the Parliament, when he proposes to have a full scale debate on industrial relations so that these motions and these problems can be properly debated by this Parliament?

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

– I understand the honourable gentleman’s concern, having regard to recent events, to have the opportunity in this House to debate industrial relations. I will have a look at the position on the Notice Paper of the notice given by the honourable member and see whether it is convenient to bring that together with any other matters to facilitate a debate.

page 909

QUESTION

ANZUS TREATY

Mr HOWE:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen a report of an interview with Kingsbury-Smith in the San Antonio Light in which the Prime Minister is quoted as offering absolute support to the United States to deter Soviet aggression in the Indian Ocean? Has he noted that the Prime Minister, in the same interview, referred specifically to Australia’s obligations in the Indian Ocean within the context of the ANZUS Treaty? Is it the Minister’s understanding that the ANZUS Treaty would cover events or hostilities anywhere in the Indian Ocean, or are there limits geographically with respect to the Indian Ocean to the coverage by the ANZUS Treaty? Are all the littoral states, for example, covered by it? Would he agree that an interpretation that the ANZUS Treaty covered the Indian Ocean in addition to the Pacific Ocean would represent a major change in Australian foreign policy?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-This again, I think, is an example of the Australian Labor Party doing what it can to show not the greatest enthusiasm for the ANZUS Treaty and for support of an alliance with the United States. I will be very happy to make a copy of the transcript of the interview available to any honourable gentleman who would want it, but let me read out the relevant paragraph in relation to this matter. What I did say to Mr Hearst was:

There isn’t the slightest doubt in Australia ‘s mind that any commitments under ANZUS we’d meet absolutely. And I have no doubt in my mind that the United States would meet any commitments under ANZUS for its part.

The use of the word ‘absolutely’ relates very specifically to commitments under ANZUS. Mr Hearst then asked:

Right. But the ANZUS security zone doesn’t extend to the Indian Ocean, does it?

To which I answered:

Oh, but it extends to Australia and I have pointed that out before in this sort of discussion. Australia extends out into the Indian Ocean.

That obviously gives ANZUS a relevance in relation to that, but talks about the Arabian Sea and whatever seem to be part of some journalist ‘s interpretation and not part of any transcript. If the honourable gentleman would like to study the transcript, he may. I would like an affirmation from him, on his part, that he and the Australian Labor Party are also prepared to support our commitments under ANZUS absolutely.

page 909

QUESTION

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the widespread concern among fuel consumers throughout Australia at the possible threat to their supplies through the agreement negotiated by the New South Wales Government with some oil companies, will he assure the House that independent distributors such as Leon Laidely will continue to enjoy the benefits of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-One thing needs to be very plain. This Government is going to support the interests of small business and of individuals against the overwhelming power either of large and powerful trade unions or of large and powerful corporations. I think that probably we have come to one of the most unhealthy circumstances that we could possibly have within Australian society when we find an alliance, the appearance and reality of an alliance, between a large and powerful company and a large and powerful trade union, designed to deny the existence, the right to survival, of a small businessman trying to operate in a related area. That is something to which there is a total commitment on the part of this Government- opposition to that kind of alliance and support for the rights of small companies, small people.

After all, that goes to the heart of what this Australian society is about- the average person in the community; the small businesses in the community; if one likes, the little people in the community who, as this case has shown, plainly need the support of the law and of governments against the kinds of arrangements that have been made by the Amoco company and by the Transport Workers Union of Australia, in the presence as I understand it of the New South Wales Government and, as has been stated, under the auspices of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We need to establish the concept that industrial disputes should be settled on the basis of principle and not on the basis of power or the unification of power between large corporations and powerful trade unions.

So there is a grave and serious principle underlying the dispute involving the Transport Workers Union. The commitment of the Government to support the rights of individuals, of citizens and of companies will not be diminished. Our support for section 45D has not diminished and indeed we will be looking to ways in which that section can perhaps be modified to make it clearer that the sort of behaviour that has occurred is outside the law and will be on future occasions. My colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations will be making a statement on these and related matters shortly after Question Time. That will show the Government’s determination to exert its influence and its authority to support Mr Laidely ‘s kind of operation. The Government’s support will be given not because of Mr Laidely as a person but because of the kind of position that is symbolised by Mr Laidely and what he was seeking to do, and by the circumstances in which he has been put by arrangements between Amoco Australia Ltd and the Transport Workers Union.

I ought to say that, as I understand it, Amoco put out a statement either last night or this morning to the effect that had I been briefed on the results of a discussion between Amoco and some of my ministerial colleagues I would not have said one or two of the things that I did. I was briefed on that discussion and also I have the advantage of having seen a document which is in the Government’s hands and which Sir John Moore made available to us- the confidential, secret agreement involving Amoco and the Transport Workers Union under the auspices of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The advice that was given as a result of the meeting with Amoco, but more particularly the nature and content of the secret agreement, filled me and the Government with the gravest possible concern. It does not make Amoco appear in any better light; it makes the company appear in an infinitely worse light. If it wishes to challenge that, I suggest that it publish the secret agreement.

page 910

QUESTION

WOOL INDUSTRY DISPUTE

Mr WEST:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware of suggestions by a vice-president of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that it was organisations representing the wool growers rather than the brokers which were responsible for the Full Bench appeal which has caused such disruption in the wool export industry? Is he aware that the wage of a worker in the wool stores can be approximately $ 1 38 net a week -

Mr Baume:

– Go back and destroy the Wollongong colliery. You are better at that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Cunningham will resume his seat. I ask honourable members on my right, particularly the honourable member for Macarthur, to remain silent.

Mr WEST:

– I have come to expect this behaviour from the honourable member for Macarthur.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will proceed with his question.

Mr WEST:

– Is the Prime Minister also aware that the net wage of a worker in the wool stores can be approximately $138 a week including the controversial $8? Is the wool industry in such a parlous state that it cannot offer a fair and reasonable wage to its key workers in addition to proper returns to growers such as himself?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-Again the honourable gentleman seems to miss the point. If there is a deficiency in the wage, that can be argued before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, as indeed it has been. It ought to be noted that it was a Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission that overturned Mr Justice Staples’ decision because it believed that Mr Justice Staples had not followed the guidelines. I suppose the honourable gentleman would want it said that the Arbitration Commission had established the guidelines. I suppose also that the honourable gentleman would want it said that the trade unions have a right of appeal against a decision, either to the Commission or through the weight and brute force of collective bargaining, but that employers should not have the right of appeal. We happen to be determined to try to uphold the decisions of the Full Bench. It is a pity that the honourable gentleman, together with Mr Justice Staples, was unable to do just that also.

page 910

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION DISPUTE

Ministerial Statement

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– by leave- Honourable members will recall statements made in the House in recent days regarding the outcome of proceedings under the auspices of the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in relation to the Transport Workers Union of Australia dispute involving Leon Laidely Pty Ltd. The Government has now had the opportunity to consider a letter from Sir John Moore on those proceedings. These proceedings took place against the background of a decision by Amoco Australia Ltd not to supply petroleum products to Mr Laidely. The Government deplores the fact that Mr Laidely ‘s fundamental right to trade freely has been denied and that this outcome followed proceedings in which Mr Laidely was denied the benefit of being present or represented. Action depriving a person of his rights in this way is totally unacceptable to government.

In these circumstances, the Government considers it has a responsibility to take action designed to redress the inability of Mr Laidely to have his rights properly considered. Accordingly, the Government has initiated steps to provide Mr Laidely with the opportunity to present his case before the same forum which previously dealt with this matter in his absence. I have thus requested the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to reconvene the previous proceedings in this matter and to invite the following parties: The Commonwealth Government, Leon Laidely Pty Ltd, the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association, the Transport Workers Union, oil companies, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the New South Wales Government.

In the course of these proceedings the Government will be submitting strongly that the parties should direct their efforts to developing a proper resolution of all issues involved in the matter and, in particular, should take into account the position of Leon Laidely Pty Ltd. Mr Laidely and the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association would thereby have the opportunity to discuss with other parties, for the first time, positive ways of settling the matter to the satisfaction of all. I might add that this matter will be raised at a meeting of oil company principals this afternoon, and their positive support for this approach will be requested.

I would express the Government’s general concern that in circumstances such as this case a secret agreement can be reached under the present law between two parties at the expense of a third party who is not present. An examination by officials has been instituted on the implications of this, and, in particular, on what can be done to resolve what the Government regards as an unsatisfactory situation. The Government is concerned at any contrivance to frustrate the purpose of section 45d, namely the stopping of organisations- unions or companies- from hindering or preventing commercial dealings between a third party and the boycotted company. Accordingly, the Government has initiated an urgent and full review of section 45d to determine whether amendments are required to ensure the effectiveness of the section. I present the following paper:

Transport Workers Union Dispute- Ministerial Statement, 19 March 1980.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The statement made by the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street), in some instances, shows some common sense. But I suggest that honourable members read a copy of the transcript of the interview of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) with John Laws on radio station 2UE this morning in conjunction with this statement made by the Minister. They will then be able to see the confrontationist attitude which is being taken by the Prime Minister. This Government seems not to understand the arrangements that can exist in industry on a number of matters, one of which is industrial peace. Many of the Government’s supporters, amongst whom are numbered companies, both large and small, have with their work forces those sorts of arrangements which operate throughout this country. It is complete hogwash for the Prime Minister or any other Minister or any other member on the government side to tell us that this is a fight about the little man, the rights of the little man and the civil liberties of the little man. I remind honourable members opposite that when we came into office at the end of 1972 we let out of jail about 15 of those little men who had been put there by their Government because they had followed their conscience and would not go to Vietnam. So let honourable members opposite not tell us about their conscience in respect of the little man.

Mr Laidely had an arrangement with both the union and the companies involved as to where he would distribute his petrol. He broke the agreement. As to the calling of all the parties together, Mr Laidely was not at the first meeting because it was decided, either of his own volition or through instructions from his solicitors, that the best way for him to tackle the problem was to use the horrendous section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. I said in this place yesterday- and I reiterate it today- that section 45D in its present form, let alone a revamped section which is now being threatened, will one day bring Australia to its knees. It completely ignores not the deals but the arrangements that have been made in industry throughout this country. It is of no use the Prime Minister saying that some of the companies and some of the unions are getting too large. That happens to be the way in which an economy like ours develops. The position is the same in the United States. It is the same in the United Kingdom. It is the same in Germany, Italy and any other Western country one cares to name. The fact is that the companies will get larger and the unions will get larger in order to be able to combat the powers of one another.

That has been laid down many times by many people not the least of whom is John Galbraith. So it is of no use saying this is a bad thing. If the Government wants to break monopolies let us debate in the Parliament how they can be broken.

If the Government thinks that the number of oil companies operating in Australia is not enough and we should double it, it should bring a motion into the House and let us debate how it can be done. Perhaps there could be fewer unions. But every time we have discussed the matter in the Parliament honourable members on both sides of the House have said that we have too many unions; we need fewer unions; we have to facilitate amalgamation in order that we can bypass some of the demarcation disputes and other industrial disputation which is brought upon our heads because of the arrangements which exist in Australia at the moment. We have 308 registered trade unions. Anybody in his right mind knows that is far too many. But this matter can be solved.

The Minister for Industrial Relations has said the Government will ask Sir John Moore to handle it. Sir John Moore has had criticism heaped on him in this Parliament by this Prime Minister over the last two days for not doing his job. All that Sir John Moore is charged with under the Constitution is the settling of disputes and that is what he did last week. He settled the dispute and the people are back at work. But the Government is not happy with that. Just listen to this for a bit of madness. This is the Prime Minister speaking this morning- not five or six years ago when he was still reading articles by Ayn Rand- in an interview on 2UE. He said:

If the trade union movement or the Transport Workers Union wants to confront the people of this nation -

I do not know whether that has ever been on: and confront the Government that is defending those interests, then it can do so, but the Government would not retreat. The Government will not withdraw whatever the consequences.

Can honourable members imagine the leader of any country telling the people as our Prime Minister has told the people of Australia ‘We are going to take action irrespective of the consequences’? It is like Ayatollah Fraser telling us he does not know what will occur as a result of what he has made up his mind to do. But as I said on the radio program when I was asked to comment, what the Prime Minister has done has been to back the Government into a corner from which it cannot escape. He has to have confrontation now. The oil company officials who will be in Canberra this afternoon will be told: ‘Irrespective of the previous arrangements you have had with private carters, you have to give them the oil so they can distribute it willy-nilly right across the metropolitan areas of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane and break all the arrangements and contracts that have been held between the Transport Workers Union and the oil companies themselves’. Let us bring Australia to a standstill because Ayatollah will be satisfied that this is politically popular, that this will in some way improve his position as a politician in this country. Can honourable members imagine the leader of this country saying: ‘Irrespective of the consequences we are going to take this action’? He says that at the same time as a statement is being prepared in which the Government says: ‘We want to get all the parties together to see whether we can get some rationale into this’. But the last paragraph of the statement does not tell us that the reconvened meeting to be held tomorrow will discuss section 45D. What the Government is saying is that it hopes to get everybody to bow to Mr Laidely ‘s wishes tomorrow.

In addition, the companies are to be told that section 45 D will be stiffened so that the arrangements that were made last week can no longer be made between the companies and the unions, irrespective of the fact that they were made under the chairmanship of the most prestigious person in industrial relations in this country, Sir John Moore. This whole episode is a farce. If the Government wanted a settlement of this matter it could reach a settlement quite simply. It could say to the oil companies, to the unions and to the contractors: ‘Make the arrangements, and let us all have a look at them and let everybody abide by them’. There have to be some rules about the way in which these things operate. We cannot expect that the people driving the petrol trucks from any of those oil companies will say: ‘Let the Laidelys of the world go where they like and let our jobs be up for grabs’. That will not be acceptable to organised labour in Australia, whether it be in the oil industry, the car industry, the textile industry or whatever industry it may be. That sort of thing will not be accepted. All the Government will do is inflame the situation.

That is so in relation not only to this episode because we can read that into what the Government is doing with respect to the other major dispute involving the Storemen and Packers Union of Australia. What utter madness! The storemen and packers in Melbourne and Sydney are on strike so the Government says: ‘We will help the situation. We will close down every wool store in Australia so that no wool at all leaves Australia’.

A week ago the Government was supporting the graziers in saying that the graziers could go into the wool stores and shift the wool themselves. This Government is not interested in decent, proper and constructive industrial relations. This Government, as the Prime Minister said this morning, is interested only in bringing the industrial relations system to its knees, irrespective of the consequences for the people of Australia. That statement by the Prime Minister ought to be the slogan in everybody’s head when they vote perhaps on issues such as this which the Prime Minister will continue to raise between now and the end of the year.

There are no benefits for the average Australian in this attitude being adopted by the Government. There are no benefits and there are no winners. Neither Mr Laidely nor people like Mr Laidely will be winners in the long run. We have to learn to understand that the 125 of us who sit in this House do not have a monopoly on what is right in industry. Many arrangements are made in industry which people may not like. Many honourable members opposite do not like the fact that many major companies in this country demand that every employee become a member of a trade union before starting work. Nevertheless, for the purpose of industrial peace in many industries that is the standard law that operates between employees and employers. The sort of arrangement which has been made between the oil companies and the distributors has been respect in the industry. One person has stepped outside that arrangement and it may be worth while having a look at it to see whether we can get some settlement around it.

It is not the sort of issue which should set a match to Australia. We should not be tearing up the rule book because of this one incident. We should not be providing the plank or the launching pad for the Laidelys of this world to use the great provisions of the Trade Practices Act to bring Australia to its knees or to have a major industrial confrontation. If the Government thought that a conference of the parties was necessary some time ago, it should have called such a conference. It should not be doing so under the camouflage of saying that it will toughen section 45D. The Government will make the companies and the unions much tougher operators than they have been in the past. They will have absolutely no respect for this Government which they see as an intruder in proper and constructive inustrial relations in this country.

Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned.

page 913

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE EVALUATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– by leave- For the information of honourable members I present the Australian summary of the principal conclusions of the report of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation. The work of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation- INFCE- has been brought to a successful conclusion. The final conference of INFCE met in Vienna from 25-27 February. It adopted a report, made up of the reports of eight working groups and a summary and overview of the evaluation. This amounts all told to over 1 ,000 pages of documentation.

It is appropriate that I report to the House on the results and conclusions of INFCE. This is not only because the INFCE study represents a large investment of time and effort over more than two years in an area of activity which has attracted significant international attention. Its outcome also bears closely on Australia’s uranium export, nuclear development and non-proliferation and safeguards policies. Australia made a significant contribution to INFCE. We played a major role in bringing the controversial Working Group 3 study on assurances of nuclear suupply to a constructive conclusion and contributed significantly to a number of other INFCE studies.

Honourable members will recall that INFCE was established at an organising conference in Washington in October 1977 following a reassessment by the United States Administration of the risks of nuclear proliferation and consultations among the ‘Summit Seven’. The concern was to see a full examination of how nuclear energy could be made widely available to help meet the world ‘s energy needs and at the same time of the ways in which the possible proliferation risks arising from an expanded world nuclear industry could be minimised. Both these principal themes were incorporated in the terms of reference of INFCE.

INFCE was not intended to produce a comprehensive assessment of nuclear power in comparison with other energy sources. Nor was its aim to make a thorough evaluation of the environmental, health and safety impacts of nuclear power, although aspects of these were touched upon in various working group reports. Above all, importance of INFCE rests in the opportunity it provided for a detailed examination at governmental level of the international ramifications of nuclear energy. Diverse and cross-cutting interests were represented among the 56 countries which participated in INFCE: Nuclear weapon and non-weapon states; parties and non-parties to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty; developed and developing countries; resource suppliers and consumers; technology holders and recipients; and countries from different political and economic groupings and all geographical regions. Given this diversity, it is a tribute to all participating countries that each of the reports of the eight working groups and the final report were adopted by consensus. This is notwithstanding that parts of the reports may be subject to differing interpretations.

INFCE has performed two principal functions. Firstly, it has collected, collated and evaluated an enormous amount of data on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Much of this is not new, but never before has it been presented under one head. This material will be an invaluable reference point for governments. Secondly, INFCE has developed guidelines for consideration by governments in developing domestic and international nuclear policies. At the midterm plenary conference of INFCE in November 1978, Australia’s representative, Mr Justice Fox, Ambassador-At-Large with responsibilities for non-proliferation and safeguards, emphasised that while INFCE was not expected to produce final or comprehensive solutions to energy or non-proliferation problems, it had a responsibility to make recommendations on these matters. Within the limits imposed by a consensus procedure, I believe that INFCE has satisfactorily fulfilled this task.

INFCE ‘s eight working groups covered all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle from uranium supply and demand through enrichment, reprocessing and recycling of plutonium, fast breeder reactors, spent fuel management, waste management and disposal and advanced reactor concepts. Another working group dealt with assurance of nuclear supply. The full report of INFCE will be available to honourable members through the Parliamentary Library. In the meantime, I am presenting with this statement a limited summary of the principal conclusions of the study prepared by the Government for the convenience of honourable members. In my remarks today, Mr Speaker, I believe that it would be useful if I drew attention to some of the major areas of INFCE ‘s conclusions which are of importance to Australia.

The Further Development of the Nuclear Industry

Turning first to the further world-wide development of the nuclear industry, INFCE concluded that for countries outside the so-called centrally planned economies nuclear power can be expected to make an increased contribution to the world ‘s energy needs over the next half century. INFCE ‘s supply and demand comparisons, which assumed the exploitation of all presently known uranium resources, show that further sources of production, which will have to be supported by new discoveries, are likely to be needed before the end of the century. INFCE concluded that, provided that the necessary additional exploration and investment can be made, the industry is likely to be able to meet requirements up to the year 2000. These findings lend weight to the Government’s decisions in 1977 to grant approval for the opening of new uranium deposits in Australia to help meet the needs of an energy deficient world. They underline the importance of encouraging continuing exploration and investment in the Australian uranium industry.

Based on its long term uranium supply assessment, INFCE concluded that if nuclear capacity growth approaches INFCE ‘s high projection uranium supply after the year 2000 might be inadequate and substantial deployment of improved thermal reactors and fast breeder reactors would be required to provide assured electricity supply. It is important that adequate supplies of uranium be available so that countries will have the widest possible choice among fuel cycle options. INFCE concluded that present enrichment capacity in operation or under construction will cover projected demand for enrichment services up until about 1990. To cover projected demand beyond then additional capacity would be required. INFCE recognised that countries with large indigenous uranium resources, such as Australia, had a substantial commercial incentive to develop national enrichment facilities. Fairly long lead times are involved for the establishment of new enrichment ventures and to this end the Government announced last year that it was proceeding to examine the feasibility of establishing a commercial uranium enrichment industry in Australia. The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) referred to these points in his statement in the House on 5 March when tabling the report of the Uranium Advisory Council on uranium enrichment.

INFCE ‘s findings on the interim storage of spent fuel and the disposal of waste are reassuring. The study concluded that, on the basis of the technologies evaluated, the radioactive wastes from any of the fuel cycles examined can be managed and disposed of with a high degree of safety and without undue risk to man or the environment. In relation to spent fuel management, INFCE concluded that whilst the amount of spent reactor fuel held in interim storage was likely to increase significantly- even with reprocessing- up to the end of the century, the technology for storage was established and expansion of existing capacity would not present undue difficulties.

Reprocessing

I will now turn to the findings of INFCE on the reprocessing of spent fuel to recover the plutonium and unused uranium and the use of that plutonium. At the outset of INFCE, reprocessing and plutonium usage were regarded as the most controversial issues to be addressed. There were strong differences of opinion. Some believed that the economics and the proliferation risks were such that there should be no early move to use plutonium on a commercial scale. Others took the view that reprocessing was an essential element in the further development of their nuclear energy programs and in the growth of energy independence and one which demanded an early commitment. These opposing views were moderated by the INFCE discussions. INFCE has also put the risk of plutonium into perspective by discussing also the proliferation risk associated with uranium enrichment.

INFCE identified a number of considerations basic to the reprocessing question. Firstly, as plutonium is an inevitable by-product of the operation of nuclear power plants, the fundamental question is its management. There are two choices: To leave the plutonium in stored spent fuel elements without resort to reprocessing; or to reprocess spent fuel and thereby to separate plutonium for recycling in existing thermal reactors or for use in fast breeder systems.

Secondly, the use of plutonium obtained through the operation of nuclear power plants is not the easiest or most efficient route to acquire fissionable material for nuclear explosive purposes. Specially constructed facilities to produce highly enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonium are likely to be preferred on technical and economic grounds by any country contemplating production of an explosive device. Thirdly, as I have already indicated, INFCE ‘s higher projections of the demand for nuclear energy suggest that uranium supply might not be sufficient to meet requirements after the year 2000. In these circumstances, reprocessing and recycling of plutonium would be essential. Fourthly, the economics and choice of particular fuel cycle strategies will vary from country to country. In deciding whether or not to pursue reprocessing, governments will take account of a range of factors, including proliferation risk, economics, energy security, resource utilisation and the environment.

INFCE concluded that, in the event of reprocessing developments, the concern for the future would be to adopt the best technical safeguards and institutional measures to increase the protection of material against diversion to nonpeaceful uses. A number of countries have said that they intend to pursue the use of plutonium on a commercial scale. On the basis of experience with safeguards to date, INFCE found that materials accountancy, supplemented by limited containment and surveillance measures for existing operating reprocessing plants, was generally capable of providing effective international safeguards. It was unforeseen that the establishment of future large commercial reprocessing plants would require improved safeguarding techniques, but that there was sufficient time to develop these given that the commercial use of plutonium was still a decade or so away. A working group established by the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency is now studying safeguards for reprocessing facilities.

On the question of institutional measures, INFCE recognised the importance of the establishment of arrangements which would place the storage of plutonium under an effective international regime. Such arrangements have been under detailed consideration for more than a year in an expert group working under the auspices of the IAEA. Australia is participating actively in this exercise and a related one on the international management of spent nuclear fuel.

These conclusions of INFCE will bear closely on Australia’s position on reprocessing. In his statements to this House in 1977 on the Government’s nuclear safeguards policies, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said that Australia had reserved its position on the reprocessing of spent fuel derived from Australian-origin uranium pending the outcome of INFCE and other international consultations. He said that the Government would require a provision in bilateral safeguards agreements that reprocessing of Australian-origin material could take place only with its prior consent. In my own statement on 24 August 1978, when I tabled the nuclear safeguards agreements concluded with Finland and the Philippines, I noted that the Government’s position had never been one of rejecting out of hand the reprocessing of Australian-origin nuclear material. Prior consent clauses in safeguards agreements give Australia the right to agree on arrangements under which reprocessing of Australian-supplied material might take place. The Government would not consent to such reprocessing if the conditions and arrangements were not fully satisfactory in terms of our nuclear non-proliferation objectives. As honourable members will be aware, some of Australia’s bilateral safeguards agreements commit us to negotiations after the conclusion of INFCE on the conditions under which the reprocessing of Australian-origin material might be permitted. Negotiations on new agreements now under way also need to address this issue.

The Government has kept the question of reprocessing under review since 1977. We believe that, with the conclusion of INFCE, it is timely to advance our consideration of possible arrangements for the exercise of our prior consent rights, which could be applied if the Government were to decide that the eventual reprocessing of Australian-origin material were to be permitted. Final decisions in this regard would be taken only if the Government’s nonproliferation objectives were fully satisfied.

Non-Proliferation and Safeguards

INFCE addressed many aspects of the nonproliferation question. INFCE was primarily concerned with the technical aspects of possible misuse of materials, facilities and technology in civil nuclear programs. It recognised, however, that a decision by a government to construct nuclear weapons was essentially a political one motivated by political and national security considerations and that international pressure was the principal deterrent. It was acknowledged that technical measures against proliferation were only relevant in the context of broader political and institutional arrangements. This underlines the need to pursue non-proliferation objectives on a broad front. Successive Australian governments have supported safeguards on the civil nuclear industry, applied through the IAEA in Vienna, and have advocated non-proliferation and nuclear arms control measures in the United Nations and other forums.

INFCE concluded that no single judgment about the risk of diversion from the different fuel cycles could be made which was valid both now and for the future. It was considered more important and constructive to identify those points in the fuel cycles which are sensitive from the proliferation standpoint. On this basis, the study concentrated attention on technical measures against proliferation and on safeguards arrangements. INFCE did not identify significant problems with the safeguards methods applied by the IAEA to existing civil nuclear facilities, but saw further improvement of existing methods as necessary for meeting safeguards objectives in future large commercial enrichment and reprocessing facilities.

Non-proliferation conditions attaching to the supply of nuclear materials, equipment and technology received particular attention in the discussions in Working Group 3 of INFCE which dealt with assurance of long-term supply. Australia was a co-chairman of this group, along with the Philippines and Switzerland. We sought and secured the co-chairmanship because we regarded Working Group 3 as the main vehicle in INFCE for pressing Australian concerns to strengthen the international non-proliferation regime and because of our interests as a major potential supplier of uranium and possibly of enrichment services.

There is a close inter-relationship between the acceptance of stringent non-proliferation conditions in international nuclear trade and assurance of supply. Without appropriate nonproliferation measures, the climate of confidence necessary to sustain nuclear trade on a stable and secure basis will be lacking. An increased risk of proliferation will not only threaten political and strategic stability but also will undermine international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Conversely, improved assurance of nuclear supply could contribute to nonproliferation objectives, inter alia, by reducing the incentives for the spread of sensitive technology, and will be an important factor in an effective international non-proliferation regime.

Nuclear importing states pressed the desirability of predictable application of nonproliferation conditions in nuclear trade. They drew attention to the potential for supply disruption caused by unilateral changes in these conditions. They also pointed to the uncertainties created by the application of differing nonproliferation conditions by individual supplier governments in bilateral agreements.

To meet these concerns of consumer countries and the non-proliferation concerns of supplier countries, INFCE took up an Australian initiative and recommended several measures to facilitate this supply assurance/non-proliferation nexus:

Firstly, the establishment of appropriate mechanisms for the updating of nonproliferation conditions in bilateral agreements; and

Secondly, the development over time of common international approaches to the differing non-proliferation conditions applied by supplier states in bilateral agreements. These could be implemented through bilateral agreements and perhaps later through joint declarations, codes of conduct and other multilateral or international instruments.

In short, INFCE acknowledged that an evolutionary approach, building on existing arrangements, would contribute to the maintenance of effective international non-proliferation arrangements in nuclear trade which could be implemented in a manner acceptable to both supplier and consumer countries. Australia is prepared to join actively in such efforts, but entirely without prejudice to the maintenance of the strict safeguards standards which we laid down in 1977.

The Post-INFCE Period

INFCE has represented an important step forward in the international examination of nuclear issues. It has provided essential background against which future decisions can be taken, and it has pointed the way to new ground and to new initiatives. INFCE has built on bases already laid, for example, by the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. Australia considers it essential that international efforts in the directions established by INFCE should be sustained in the years ahead if lasting results are to be achieved.

Over the next few years, international efforts to promote an enhanced consensus on nuclear energy and non-proliferation issues are expected to continue. It will be essential that Australia take an active part to ensure that our nonproliferation and commercial interests are protected and advanced. In this regard, the Prime Minister emphasised in August 1977 that Australia’s ability to influence non-proliferation developments will depend to a great extent on whether or not it is a major supplier of uranium. Only as a producer and supplier of uranium can Australia be an effective force in achieving improved international safeguards and controls.

Australia’s approach to non-proliferation issues post-INFCE will be based in the shortterm on seeking limited practical objectives. These will constitute building-blocks for the broader and longer-term objective of an enhanced international consensus. I have already mentioned the IAEA expert studies on international plutonium storage and the international management of spent fuel which hold out the prospect of workable and effective multilateral schemes to reduce proliferation risks. There is also the possibility of building gradually upon the work of INFCE Working Group 3 in the area of the non-proliferation conditions applying in international nuclear trade.

One kind of institutional arrangement which could contribute to non-proliferation objectives and which has received greater attention internationally as a result of INFCE is the possibility of multinational participation in sensitive stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly enrichment, reprocessing, and fast breeder reactors. Arrangements would need to be tailored to individual circumstances. Somewhat different approaches might be adopted for enrichment and reprocessing or even for the same stage of the fuel cycle. The multinational concept has direct implications for Australia. In January 1979, in announcing that it was proceeding to study the feasibility of establishing a commercial uranium enrichment industry here, the Government said that multination participation would be fully examined and in particular the potential advantages from the non-proliferation viewpoint.

In conclusion, it will be clear that INFCE has brought together, in a single study, examination of a wide range of issues confronting governments and the nuclear industry. It has also brought together disparate points of view and encouraged a great appreciation of the different perspectives among participating countries. In carrying forward the work of INFCE, it will be important that a spirit of consensus continues to mark international nuclear discussions in order to avoid confrontation on north-south lines or between suppliers and consumers. The issues are of such magnitude and the eventual stakes so important that an appropriate balance must be struck among the manifold and competing interests involved. I present the following paper:

International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation- Principal Conclusions- Ministerial Statement, 19 March 1980.

Motion (by Mr Groom) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– In reply to the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) I immediately advert to the fact that the summary was available in Vienna in January of this year and the preamble in that summary clearly indicated that the first plenary conference of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation group was held in Vienna in November 1978.

The group decided that the International Atomic Energy Agency should be requested to publish the final reports. I say that because it is quite clear that the matter has been under consideration for some considerable time. It is on that note that the Opposition regards the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) as being inadequate in what we are about because the Government has been using the existence of INFCE as an excuse to delay discussion on many of the very important issues surrounding uranium and Australia’s export of it. We have been told all the time to wait for the results of INFCE, that it would provide the basis of informed discussions. But we would say that the INFCE fig leaf as fallen. The Government still refuses to discuss the central issues as they affect Australia and Australian policy.

The Minister’s statement is very long on what INFCE has to say, but very short on what the Australian Government’s policy is. A long summary of INFCE is not a substitute for discussion of Australian policy.

Let me take one example. At the heart of the INFCE report is the assertion that without reprocessing there may be insufficient uranium in the post year 2000 period to service the Western world’s energy requirements. There will not be enough uranium, according to the report if a once-through cycle strategy is adopted. The report argues that, if nuclear energy demands are to be met after the year 2000,. it will not be adequate to rely solely on enriched natural uranium. It will be necessary to reprocess the spent uranium fuel and to use it in thermal and fast breeder cycles. In other words, it is arguing that reprocessing is necessary and virtually inevitable.

Reprocessing, of course, involves the extraction of plutonium from the spent reactor fuel and plutonium can be used to manufacture explosive nuclear devices.

Let us have a look at what has been the policy of the United States of America in respect of these matters. It is for these very same reasons that the United States has attempted to encourage the use of once-through cycles only where the spent fuel is not reprocessed. As honourable members know, the United States has been anxious to talk about storage facilities on islands perhaps in the Pacific region. The United States did so for the reason that it felt there was a danger, not only in that aspect of storage, but also if reprocessing took place as to what was going to happen to two things-the plutonium thereby extracted and the safe disposal of the residual high level waste. It is for that same reason that one of the planks in the Government’s socalled safeguards platform was to prohibit reprocessing without prior consent.

How did the Australian Government react to this fundamental point in the INFCE report? Does the Government agree with INFCE? What did the Minister have to say about it in his statement? We were told at length the considerations that INFCE put forward as being relevant to the development of Australia’s position on reprocessing. As far as the Australian Government’s policy is concerned, we have been told no more on this matter than we learned from the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) some three years ago.

The Government must have a view. INFCE began in 1977 and we have been represented in the evaluation right throughout. The principal conclusions of the study can hardly have come as a surprise, a bolt from the blue. The final report, as we note, was published some months ago.

The Minister pointed out that conditions under which reprocessing might be permitted will need to be addressed in what he described as negotiations on new agreements now under way’. Presumably he meant the negotiations with Euratom and Japan. The Minister gave no assurance that these conditions would be publicly announced prior to their being negotiated. Does he intend to inform the Parliament as to the Government’s policy, or will he wait to see how its position, whatever it might be, fares in negotiations with Euratom and Japan and then represent the lowest common denominator compromise reached through these negotiations as consistent with the Government’s safeguards policy? We are just not going to be told what the Government thinks about these matters. What the Minister has said, or rather chosen not to say, is totally in accord with the Government’s consistent policy of secrecy on nuclear matters. The Opposition put on record again in August last year that it was expressing its dissatisfaction over the Government’s secrecy; over its previous refusal to table the model safeguards agreement. We had to read the details of the safeguards agreement in the Sydney Morning Herald,

There has been a continuing refusal to inform the Parliament as to what we are about. A month ago I saw appear on the list of Questions on Notice a question by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding), a very relevant question, concerning INFCE. It is Question No. 5307 on the Notice Paper. It still has not been answered. It has been ignored.

A fortnight ago in the Senate, the Government refused to disclose, even in the most general terms, the present state of the negotiations with Japan and Euratom on the present safeguards arrangements. The Government has many things to hide. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the INFCE report itself. The report by and large is a document written from the perspective of the uranium buyers and the nuclear establishment. Its approach throughout is to talk about assurance of uranium supply firstly and about nonproliferation as a secondary matter. I might point out that the Minister’s Department has gone to the trouble of producing a summary of the INFCE report. The text of this Australian summary has been attached to the Minister’s statement. We wonder why such an action was necessary because there was a perfectly good summary attached to the INFCE report itself. It is not too difficult to determine the reason if it is compared with the summary that INFCE made. It is impossible not to be struck by the bias in the INFCE summary towards the uranium consumer- the uranium buyer whose overriding concern is not safety but simply the supply of his energy needs. This bias leads to some startling conclusions.

For example, we are told:

Working Group 3 asserted as a general principle that assurance of supply and assurance of non-proliferation are complementary.

There may be circumstances when they are, and the report refers to some, but to assert this as a general principle is absurd, as well as dangerous. On that general principle we would best prevent Pakistan from developing a bomb by signing it up with a long term contract. That is the logic of Working Group 3’s general principle. In his statement the Minister was careful to say that improved assurance of supply could contribute to non-proliferation objectives. The example he gave, namely, that of assured supply reducing incentives for the spread of sensitive technology, is weak and highly challengeable. I am surprised that he used it. But even the Minister shrinks from endorsing the INFCE conclusion as a general principle.

The Government purports to have established prior consent as one of the pillars of its safeguards policy. The Minister laboured this point in his speech. We might then expect him to have something to say to the Parliament about an INFCE proposal that is in direct contradiction to that policy. Prior consent is a subject which causes INFCE some general difficulty, not just in respect of transfers to Third World countries, but also in respect of reprocessing. The potential for, as INFCE sees it, the arbitrary exercise of prior consent causes it some concern. INFCE says that prior consent should be:

Exercised in a manner that is predictable and that conforms to any understanding that may have been reached between the parties when the right of prior consent was established.

This again raises the question which I raised earlier of the Government’s reluctance to be open with its policy thinking. Does the Government propose to conform with the INFCE proposal on the question of prior consent? If it does, what are to be the policy guidelines? Is it to conform with understandings reached when the safeguards agreements were concluded? Are there any understandings that this Parliament has not been told about

There are two other major issues arising from the INFCE that I would like to deal with. The first concerns the updating of non-proliferation undertakings. The Minister made much of this in his statement. He talked about INFCE having taken up an Australian initiative of updating non-proliferation conditions. What the Minister did not tell us, however, was rather more interesting. In this connection, Working Group 3 suggested:

Assurances of supply could be enhanced if the adoption of such mechanisms were to be complemented by guarantees regarding the continuity of supply during the re-negotiation process.

Stripped of its diplomatic tautology, this simply means that the withdrawal of supply is not to be used as a negotiating lever. This no doubt is fine from the viewpoint of the uranium buyer, but what it says about updating and improving safeguards is in effect that the buyer will be free to decide what updated non-proliferation measures he will accept. At the very least, assured supply will not encourage a positive attitude towards new and tougher safeguards on the part of the buyer. At worst and taken to its logical conclusion, it will mean that updated agreements are to be settled on the buyer’s terms. The Government, of course, has not only chosen not to enlighten us on what its attitude is on this question, but has not even chosen to let us know what the question is.

The other subject I wish to draw attention to is the question of institutional arrangements which might strengthen proliferation resistance to the fuel cycle. It is clear from the report that INFCE leans strongly towards multinational or international fuel cycle schemes. This is a most important issue and we would have hoped that at this stage the Government would have been able to express views on it that go beyond vague generalities, despite the complexities of the questions involved. From what the Minister said, it would appear that once more he is saying less than he could. Certainly the Government should explain precisely what it means by the generalisation it favours. For example, in what situation would arrangements need to be tailored to individual circumstances? What are the direct implications for Australia and how does the Government see them? Certainly, where any risk of diversion might seem possible by a country, its chances of effecting such a diversion might be considered to be diminished to the extent that it is linked with other countries and accountable to them for its performance of part of the cycle. On the other hand, from Australia’s view, such arrangements should not be designed in any way which would diminish Australian control over its uranium.

A principal problem in the Government’s policy remains its willingness to lose control of its uranium at the earliest possible opportunity. As the Opposition has pointed out on numerous occasions, Australia is the only safe country in the world which abandons control of its uranium at the very beginning of the fuel cycle. In all other countries, the governments maintain control throughout the cycle. They control the cycle at every stage, whether it be the enrichment stage, fuel processing or reprocessing.

But the Australian Government’s only interest is in selling yellowcake. It shows no interest at all in controlling the rest of the cycle. Its principal motivation has always been commercial. There is therefore some irony in the fact that the production of uranium in Australians getting under way now against a background of weak markets, as the Australian Financial Review said as recently as 17 March. The weak state of the uranium market makes a mockery of the Minister’s statement that INFCE energy forecasts lend weight to the Government’s decisions to approve the opening up of new uranium deposits. In casting around for justification of its bad decisions, the Government has had to resort to INFCE when the real test is in the market place. And in the market place, the Government is failing.

But safeguards are only one aspect of the problem. Safeguards alone represent very little. They have significance only as part of a wider scheme of things which must include control of the fuel cycle, safety and resolution of the problem which apparently INFCE thinks has been solved but which the Opposition and the Labor Party certainly do not- and that major problem is waste disposal. It is right to look to future possible multilateral rather than bilateral arrangements as providing potentially a more secure framework to minimise non-proliferation risks. But even such arrangements in themselves would be inadequate without also resolving the outstanding problems of control, safety and waste disposal. And in looking towards multilateral arrangements or common approaches, we should not assume that they will of necessity provide a better framework.

In this respect, INFCE provides an important lesson. We should not allow the uranium consumer and the nuclear establishment to set the terms. We should not be slaves to consensus if it means weakening rather than strengthening controls. Australia is a major uranium producer. It is uniquely placed to exert an influence that consumers should not be able to ignore. To judge by INFCE however, this Government lacks the necessary political will. It adopts a policy of ready compromise so that nothing will stand in the way of commercial sales. Its approach is secretive indeed. The Government’s reticence over negotiations with Japan and Euratom probably derives from its safeguards policy.(Extension of time granted). I was making the point that the Government’s reticence means that its safeguards policy could be running into serious trouble. The Japanese will be most unlikely to accept conditions from Australia that are more onerous than those they have accepted from European countries. What this all points to is the fact that the Government’s short-sighted commercialism is not only dangerous and has been pursued despite the risks involved for ourselves and for future generations in the absence of proper guarantees of safety, waste disposal and non-proliferation but also it will simply prove incompatible with even the maintenance of a pretence of concern for anything but commercial gain.

Let me advert to what has been said. In the statement it was foreseen that the establishment of future large commercial reprocessing plants would require improved safeguarding techniques. But if a country is going into the cyclethe Labor Party has definite reservations about that because improved technology has yet to be developed- if a country is in the process of what this Government is about, it becomes very clear indeed that it will have to talk about international control in the enrichment process, in the reprocessing process, in the safeguarding of plutonium and in the safeguarding of the waste. That has to be done. Yet here we have a government that just sells the yellowcake to somebody, some person. But in all those processes I have just mentioned, some other government has some control. Does this not prove the lack of logic in the Government’s policy- that we lose control of this fuel on the first sale; somebody else gets it? It is no good talking about a piece of paper that shows that we have some control over the safeguards. If it has gone into a fuel cycle, then as INFCE implies it virtually will be subject to international control. We should own and control the fuel all the time. That is the first thing.

The Opposition’s point of view is: Why should we be getting into this area of technology which INFCE blithely says has been solved? In France, I looked at the reprocessing and waste disposal position. The waste disposal technique of vitrification by the French is certainly not accepted by the Americans. We have to look only to Professor Ringwood ‘s test of the glass vitrification process. He shows that the glass would break down if the uranium waste were put in the ground in glass and certainly if it were put near salt. He has proved that. That is the very reason why the United States has never wanted to encourage reprocessing. For example, plutonium could be taken out of the reprocess fuel, but one is still left with the high level waste disposal problem. How can this problem be solved? In our view, storing it on a Pacific island is not the way to solve it either.

The point the Opposition is about is that if we start to talk about this fuel, we have to talk about proliferation and a great risk of nuclear destruction of the world. Certainly we have to talk about international control at present. But we say to the Government: Do not abandon the Australian people merely for a hole in the ground for a few paltry dollars when the Government could be using its own technology and techniques which might improve some of the advances alleged to have been made already. Our scientists at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission have ideas about different methods of enrichment. There are different points of view on Ringwood ‘s view on waste disposal. It would be far better for the Government to be putting its resources behind these technologies because then we could perhaps lead the world in areas where it certainly needs help.

It is of no advantage to be told that we are concluding agreements with Finland and the Philippines. Let me make it very clear: The Philippines has a lot of problems, not the least of which is political instability. Why in the name of fortune would we be encouraging the Filipinos to have a nuclear reactor? It boggles the mind. Looking at this issue of nuclear technology, a nuclear reactor, such as Japan has, has to be closed down for at least three or four months of the year for what is called maintenance and the reservicing of the fuel. If the Government gives an underdeveloped country such as the Philippines one reactor it must at least give it two because there has to be a backup when the first one is closed down. There is serious unrest in the Philippines. If we look at a recent statement by a Catholic bishop we see that he feels that there could be a revolution in the country because of this suggestion that the new economic order will use energy and industrial complexes to get the poor out of the villages to put them into factories to earn a dollar a day. They would not be happy in this situation. It is contrary to social justice. It would lower their dignity. It would deprive them of what they should be about.

It would be far better for us, from the point of view of helping the Philippines, to be talking about intelligent aid. A number of our scientists do this. If honourable members go to the Philippines and have a look at the aid that is givenparticularly by the engineers of the SnowyMountains Engineering Corporation- building roads and irrigation projects, they would see marvellous results which are the best in the world. But to sell the Philippines a reactor is to create enormous problems, and the Minister must agree. We cannot entrust the fuel cycle to somebody who might not have any of the principles we hold. I am not talking about the present, I am talking about the future. The same would apply in respect of Zia in Pakistan. We cannot entrust fuel to these sorts of people. If the Government does not have integrity and some understanding of political stability it is heading for disaster.

One of the best results would be to improve the standard of life of people in other countries. This can be done by agro-economics. We should be improving the fuel cycle or the rice strain at village level. In the Philippines the International Rice Research Institute, which is led by Australians, is producing a rice which grows on a 110-day cycle. This gives the village people a doubling or a tripling of their income. It is far better to leave the people where they can grow food and improve their standard of living. We should not be rushing around talking to some self-appointed dictator or a progressive madam and selling reactors to them. To suggest that we will receive good money for the fuel is nonsense.

In the Association of South East Asian Nations group, and South Korea, we have to predict that within the next seven years every country will have a change of leader, either by natural causes or otherwise. We should not get too involved in this issue until we develop our own technologymost importantly, if and when we do own and control that fuel throughout the whole cycle.

Debate (on motion- by Mr Hodges) adjourned.

page 922

COMMONWEALTH ACTION ON THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO HOUSING COSTS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- The House will recall that in agreement with the States the Government established a national committee of inquiry into housing costs in 1977. The committee, chaired by Mr Ernest Eyers, presented its report in September 1978. The recommendations of the inquiry have been the subject of extensive study and debate by governments and industry since that date and have already had a significant impact. Today I want to outline to the House the action the Commonwealth has taken in its own areas of responsibility in response to that inquiry. As the vast majority of the inquiry’s recommendations relate to the responsibilities of the States I will also outline action taken by the Commonwealth to assist and encourage State initiatives.

The single most important contribution the Commonwealth can make to stabilising housing costs and ensuring access to home ownership is to maintain an economic climate which minimises inflation, maintains the incentive to invest and ensures the availability of housing finance. It must be recognised that increases in housing costs and prices have moderated significantly since the early 1970s as a direct result of this Government’s policies. From 1973-74 to 1974-75 new house prices went up 25 per cent as measured by the consumer price index- CPI; from 1977-78 to 1978-79 the increase was 4.2 per cent. Prices of established houses have actually fallen in real terms in all capitals other than Sydney, as measured by recent Real Estate Institute survey data. First mortgage finance from banks and building societies is readily available to credit-worthy borrowers in most areas of Australia. The volume of lending in fact rose by 16.1 per cent in 1979.

The Commonwealth has acted positively in taking steps to follow through recommendations of the committee of inquiry. It is acting to stimulate new building techniques to reduce costs. The

Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act will be extended so that grants can be given for research and development in building and construction techniques as well as building materials, products and fittings. As from July 1980, approved projects will be eligible to have up to half of their costs met by grants up to a limit of $500,000 per company per year. It is not enough just to stimulate new techniques and materials. Their application can be hampered by difficulty in getting approvals from local governments. To help overcome this problem the Commonwealth will strengthen its support for the Australian Building Systems Appraisal CouncilABSAC which carries out technical assessments of new products. High level technical support will be provided to ABSAC by the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Construction and also by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Company expenditures on tests carried out at ABSAC ‘s request will become eligible for grant assistance under the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. These actions should establish ABSAC as the national appraisal centre for new building technologies. Together with the amendments to the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act they will both encourage innovations and speed their acceptance by local and semi-government authorities, banks and insurance companies.

The Government agrees with the inquiry that stability in the building industry is important to keep housing costs down. This stability requires a steady flow of housing finance. We have asked the committee of inquiry into the Australian financial system to consider whether any institutional reforms or other special measures in addition to policies already being pursued are necessary to maintain a stable flow of housing finance. To improve efficiency in the production of land and housing and the use of existing housing stock careful consideration is being given to the best means for upgrading research and statistics available to the industry. The timeliness and availability of some statistics are already being improved. The Department of Housing and Construction and the Australian Bureau of Statistics are continuing to work for further improvements in this area and will report to Cabinet.

Finally, so far as purely Commonwealth action is concerned, the Department of Housing and Construction will seek opportunities in its own housing construction activities to pursue low cost alternatives in engineering standards, residential design and the provision of services such as electricity. The objective is to provide well researched examples of new and cheaper techniques that can be applied by industry and the relevant State and local government authorities. As was indicated in the report, State and local governments have a very substantial responsibility in efforts to contain or reduce housing costs. State and local governments therefore have the critical role in following up the inquiry’s recommendations. However, the Commonwealth will actively assist and encourage them to take action to reduce housing costs. The Commonwealth Government is funding housing costs research through existing programs. It is cooperating with the States in existing ministerial forums such as the Local Government Ministers’ Conference to encourage complementary action by all States, and, in particular, it has established a new, special purpose Ministerial Council on housing costs.

The inquiry recommended that the States and Commonwealth sponsor projects to examine alternative planning and engineering standards. Under the national water resources program the Commonwealth will assist the States to fund studies designed to reduce the cost of financing, supplying and maintaining water services including sewerage. An amount of $248,000 will be provided by the Commonwealth for the research in 1979-80 alone. The studies deal with matters such as alternative wastewater collection and treatment systems and will be carried out in New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria. The studies will cost more than $l.lm in total, over the next three years. Existing Commonwealth-State ministerial forums have also been used to pursue the inquiry’s recommendations. The Commonwealth has provided secretariat and technical support for a comprehensive review of the mechanisms for coordinating building regulations among the States and Territories. The resulting report will be considered initially by the Local Government Ministers Conference to be held next month. The report has made recommendations which should lead to more uniform building regulations, a greater sensitivity to the costs imposed by regulations and a speedier adaptation of building codes to accept new technologies. These steps will improve the efficiency of the industry and thereby lower costs.

Another example of the use of existing Commonwealth-State forums is action by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) to have the Australian Transport Advisory Council study the development of uniform legislation for the movement of prefabricated houses throughout

Australia. This could have important implications for rural housing costs as well as for the manufactured housing industry.

Because the inquiry’s recommendations overlap a number of ministerial portfolios at State and Commonwealth levels, it became clear that existing arrangements for Commonwealth-State co-operation were not really adequate to follow up the report. For this reason the Commonwealth took steps to establish a special intergovernmental council. The first meeting of the Ministerial Council on Housing Costs was held just two weeks ago. At that meeting the States outlined the considerable progress that they had already made in implementing measures to reduce costs, but agreed that there was more to be done. The Council agreed on a work program. It will investigate a common code for residential subdivision engineering standards; assess the scope for reducing the costs of buying and selling a home, including stamp duties, registration costs and fees charged by lawyers, real estate agents and financial institutions; examine the controls over urban redevelopment, infill the rehabilitation; consider the need to draft uniform construction and park development codes for mobile homes; and work to improve statistical information on housing markets. These are highly practical issues basic to efforts to reduce housing costs. The Commonwealth is providing technical and research support to the Council, which will meet again in June to discuss progress.

This statement has briefly outlined the wide range of detailed actions that have flowed from the report of the national housing costs inquiry. It must be emphasised that these actions are continuing. It is recognised that the job is not finished. At all levels of government further steps can and should be taken. I intend to keep honourable members informed from time to time of progress being made by governments at all levels in containing and reducing housing costs. I present the following paper:

Commonwealth Action on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Housing Costs- Ministerial Statement, 19 March 1980.

Motion (by Mr Killen) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-The empty statement we have just heard from the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) is one of the most disappointing and disturbing statements ever given by a Federal Minister for Housing. I am mystified why the Minister’s advisers would allow him to present this empty and hollow proposal to the House today. From the Minister’s statement it is difficult to believe that he has even read the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Housing Costs, which was released some 20 months ago. It is just not a fact that it was presented only recently. I repeat that it has been in the hands of the Government for 20 months. The Minister’s statement shows that he has not clearly understood the main thrust of even the Committee ‘s argument.

The Minister outlined several responses which, though belated, are welcome, in relation to low cost housing design and experimental materials; but even these showed no concern for energy efficiency in building design and material. We know that not only our country but the world generally is going through at least a liquid fuel energy crisis. People reside in their homes for a great deal of the 24 hours of the day, but in this report there is not the slightest mention of design for energy efficiency. When will the Government produce its so-called energy policy? When will it deal with one of the most important aspects, energy efficiency in building materials and in the construction of building a home.

Nor did the Minister admit that although the price index for material used in home building rose by 5.9 per cent in 1978-79, it rose by 13 per cent from January 1979 to January 1980. Apart from that, the Government has merely indicated that in the future it will refer some of the matters discussed in the report to other committees and working groups. The Minister has given no assurances that effective action will be taken to reduce or even slow down the rate of housing cost increases.

Let me remind the House of the first major finding of the Committee of Inquiry. Since the Minister does not understand, and has had very little to do with the report, I refer him to page 3 thereof. Paragraph 1 states: . . quite serious difficulties have been and are being experienced by people, particularly first home buyers, seeking to purchase or rent housing. It is clear that would-be purchasers of dwellings now find it necessary to save longer to cover deposits and transaction costs and must thereafter devote larger proportions of their disposable incomes to housing debt service than did their counterparts ten years ago.

I do not want to ridicule either the Minister or the Government but that statement was made not by me as an Opposition spokesman but by a committee of inquiry set up by the Government into the cost of housing, one that reported 20 months ago. That was its first finding. I ask the Minister to study it. Under the housing policies of this Government, the situation has continually grown worse. Ten years ago nine out of ten people could afford to buy their own homes. Today, only one out of ten people can do so. I believe that the situation will get worse because, next to unemployment, housing is the most serious social problem in this country. This Government has failed to deal with and to meet the really serious problems presented by the housing crisis, which is growing in this country, particularly in the lower price sector. Later I will give figures to prove that as many as 80 per cent of single income earners are unable to purchase a home. The Committee’s report went on to explain the reasons for the effects of this situation: in the absence of initiatives by government, the difficulties facing prospective home buyers and renters are likely to continue. In fact, a continuation of the prevailing economic situation is likely to see a widening of the gap between the cost of housing and its affordability.

That is a further statement by this Government appointed Committee damning the Government’s policies. It was placed on record 20 months ago, yet no action has been taken by this Government concerning it. If time allows I will give the facts and details how this Government is withdrawing from the housing market, how it is withdrawing from both the private and public sectors. In Sydney the median price of established houses is about $62,000 and, at the bottom end of the range, the market price for a new house and land package in the outer western suburbs of Sydney is $42,000.

I live 1 5 miles from the Sydney General Post Office. Sydney stretches for something like 35 miles west and 35 miles south-west of that point. Today that is where the population growth is occurring and where most of the housing development is taking place. When one gets 20 or 25 miles out of Sydney- say, Blacktown which is over 20 miles from the city centre- one has to travel two or three miles to get to a block of land. The frequency and cost of transport is a serious social problem. People are being forced into these areas to seek housing. People cannot get a grant under the Home Savings Grants Scheme if they are paying $42,000 for a block of land and dwelling because the Government Scheme cuts out at $40,000. People on a single income below $15,000 a year- that is equal to 125 per cent of average weekly earnings- cannot afford to buy a home today. Something like 80 per cent of single income earners in this country are disqualified from owning their own home. It takes the average income earner more than 10 years to save the required deposit to be eligible to obtain a $30,000 loan to buy the cheapest available home in the metropolitan area of Sydney.

Housing prices in Sydney have been rising on average at the rate of $1,000 a month. More and more people are seeing their chances of owning a home fading day by day. The only program that the Government has available to help this situation is the Home Savings Grants Scheme. I challenge any Government member or supporter in any Liberal seat in metropolitan Sydney to say that he can get land and a dwelling for less than $40,000 in order that one of his constituents can buy a home. This is not possible because the Home Savings Grants Scheme phases out at $40,000.

These problems are not confined to Sydney, as the Minister for Housing and Construction would have us believe. The average cost per square metre for a contract built house in Sydney rose from $186 in 1976-77 to $231 in June 1979. That means that the construction costs for a 12- square home have risen from $25, 100 to $3 1 ,200 in two years. In Melbourne the contruction costs of a 12-square home rose from $27,000 to $30, 100 over the same two-year period. In Perth a 12-square home that could be built for $25,600 in 1977 now costs over $27,000 to build. What is the reason for the increases in building costs? The Master Builders Association of Victoria made a statement in its journal of 14 February 1 980. This is what that Association had to say:

Unless there is a sustained rise in building activity so that manufacturers can increase their production volumes, building materials can be expected to rise at an even higher rate in 1980.

The Minister said that the Government was concerned to stabilise housing costs by maintaining an economic climate which minimises inflation. But inflation is now back into double digit figures. Interest rates are rising. A rise of one-half per cent in interest rates from 1 1 per cent to 1 1 Vi per cent on a 25-year loan of $30,000 means a rise of $ 1 1 a month in repayments. In other words, the repayments will be increased from $294 a month to $305 a month. That one-half per cent increase means that the total repayments over 25 years rise from $88,210 to $91,482; a rise in the home buyer’s debt of $3,270. If interest rates increased by 1 per cent this would mean an increase in repayments of $6,000 to $6,500.

I seek the leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table setting out the monthly repayments on loans of $20,000, $25,000 and $30,000 repaid over a 25-year period with interest rates ranging from 5.5 per cent- which we used to get in the good old days- to 12.5 per cent, which rate will be reached pretty soon under this Government.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. Surely this Government cannot claim that its policies have brought stability to the home building industry. Loan approvals to individuals for housing across Australia fell in December 1979 to the lowest level for two years. Building approvals fell in December 1979 to a low of 9,989. The house building price index rose to its highest level in six years. New dwelling commencements in 1978-79 numbered 119,000. The Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry estimated that without inflationary pressures it could build at least 135,000 dwellings a year. In a period of unemployment with many people waiting for homes, we find that new dwelling commencements are 12 per cent below the level that is needed.

In the December quarter of 1979 new dwelling commencements fell by 2,000 below the September quarter level. There is no stability shown by these figures. Rather they indicate unevenness, uneasiness and insecurity in the building industry. The Minister has given no indication that the Government intends to find out what people need in the different regions across Australia in terms of quality and quantity of housing. If the Government intends to investigate these matters and do something about the situation it should do so.

This Government is withdrawing from both the private sector and the public sector of the housing industry. The amount of money that the Government makes available in the public sector for housing in Australia has fallen from 3.9 per cent of Budget expenditure to 1.1 per cent this year. Next year the amount will be even lower. The only policy that this Government has in the private sector is its Home Savings Grants scheme. In the cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Darwin it is extremely rare to be able to purchase a new or old home for less than $40,000. If it is this Government’s policy to withdraw more and more from the public sector of the housing industry and leave it to the private sector there will be an enormous crisis in this country. There are at least 100,000 persons homeless now. There are at least 250,000 people living in temporary housing accommodation and there are over 70,000 families on housing commission waiting lists. The Minister and the Government stand condemned for net acting On the report made by a Government committee.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned.

page 926

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Loan (War Service Land Settlement) Bill 1980.

Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1980.

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Amendment Bill 1980.

page 926

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

-by leave-On 22 November 1979, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence tabled its report Australian Defence Procurement’. In the course of the investigations of the Sub-committee on Defence Matters allegations were made to the Sub-committee that there had been intimidation by the Department of Defence of a prospective witness and a witness. The nature of the allegations was the subject of a separate hearing of the Sub-committee on Defence Matters. Subsequently, the Department of Defence was given an opportunity for those of its officers involved to reply to these allegations. The replies were forwarded by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) on 19 November 1979. The Sub-committee received conflicting views on whether intimidation of the prospective witness and the witness actually took place. It understands the apprehension of those public servants in regard to what they believe to have been intimidation. But it also appreciates the sensitivity of the Department of Defence to unfortunate Press publicity arising out of submissions placed before the Subcommittee. On the evidence available the Subcommittee cannot establish that such intimidation took place in relation to the Sub-committee’s investigations. Therefore, the Committee and the Sub-committee believe that further pursuit of the matter is unlikely to lead to a definite conclusion. The Committee and the Sub-committee consider that it is essential that parliamentary committees should, at all times, have full access to all relevant evidence and that witnesses should have free access to committees to give evidence. However, this must be done within the accepted rules relating to the disclosure of classified or other restricted information.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-by leave-The matters on which the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) has just reported are matters which are of some concern to me and of some concern to members of the Joint Committee on

Foreign Affairs and Defence. One of the witnesses based most of his claims of intimidation on matters which were not before the Committee and which has risen some considerable time before the Committee even considered the subject matter from which his complaints arose. That witness and another witness, Mr Berthelsen, both were, and are, of the very strong opinion that they were intimidated and are being discriminated against in matters relating to their employment because of activities which they undertook before a parliamentary committee. The truth or otherwise of these matters is not for me to establish and it is not possible for me to establish.

Certain factors, however, cannot be ignored by this Parliament if, in fact, parliamentary committees are to continue to have any form of effective inquiry capacity in areas of sensitivity where government and the Public Service is concerned. My understanding is- a statement was made before the Committee- that the evidence given by Mr Berthelsen whose case, I think, is the prime one at least, in relation to the allegation of intimidation was derived from public sources. On the day following the giving of that evidence he was asked to sign security documents which he had previously signed. That cannot be taken as evidence of intimidation nor would it be possible for someone to establish a case on that basis. It is also a strange coincidence. But, subsequent to that, Mr Berthelsen has been subjected to a number of activities which may or may not derive from his appearance before the committee. These activities do threaten his future employment as an officer of the Auditor-General’s Department which reports directly to this Parliament and which, as a consequence, threaten the ability of committees of this Parliament to conduct inquiries where evidence of public servants which may be contrary to the views of more senior members of the Public Service is required.

It is a matter of some seriousness and a matter which has not been resolved by this Committee because it was not possible- nor- and I say this advisedly- was there substantive evidence able to be produced that intimidation took place. There was, surrounding this matter, considerable newspaper publicity, the responsibility for which may rest with any of the parties involved. At least one allegation contained a matter of certain written documentation between an officer of one department and the head of another department. My understanding is that currently, Mr Berthelsen is on the transfer list or on a request for transfer list from his Department. There are difficulties in governments dealing with what it would see as persons who are unreliable in sensitive areas. I acknowledge this. But the Parliament also has the problem of determining whether it can protect those people who come before its committees and who give honest information which embarrasses persons who have total control over their future promotions and careers. It is a matter which I raise now because I think it is of real consequence to the future operation and capacities of parliamentary committees. This case has been closed, as I would see it, unsatisfactorily because it was impossible to reach a satisfactory resolution of it. It has not been to the Parliament’s benefit that that has happened.

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– by leave- When this matter was brought to my attention I, of course, investigated it. I was satisfied with the response that I got from the officers of the Department of Defence that no intimidation had occurred. Now the Chairman of the Sub-committee on Defence Matters has reported to the House that the Subcommittee has been unable to find any evidence to substantiate the allegation. The person who made the charge has the whole of the onus on him to discharge. He cannot say: ‘I make a charge and it is up to you to disprove it’. But this is not the occasion for dilating on the way parliamentary committees work. I hold very, very strong views as to the totally unsatisfactory way in which some parliamentary committees conduct their business. I think it is high time, if these committees are to proliferate and be active, that they take into consideration the means whereby those people who appear before them are adequately protected. I await the opportunity, when the report of my friend from Kennedy (Mr Katter) is being discussed, to expand on that.

I think that parliamentary committees which are involved in wide-ranging examinations and discussions should have attached to them a parliamentary counsel to examine and to crossexamine witnesses. I think that when records of some people who appear before parliamentary committees are revealed to the House honourable members will be astonished to think that they have been able to secure for themselves thoroughly unmerited reputations- before the Committee for a start and in the public arena. This is a very grave matter. I have always held to the view that it is the authority of this Parliament that counts and not a committee outside. I am no admirer of the congressional system of government. That is the way in which I have been brought up. I admire the Westminster system of government, not the congressional system of government. I fear that both sides of this House are seeking to commingle the two. If the establishment of a committee system is desired, I implore those honourable members of goodwill to try to find ways and means of protecting those who appear before the committees and to protect also the reputation of the Parliament.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-by leave-The Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) mentioned that he would have something more to say when the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on ‘Australian Defence Procurement’ was before this Parliament for debate. I make the request to him that he move, as he is the only Minister in the House capable -

Mr Killen:

– May I point out to the honourable member that a motion is before the House relating to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I have to respond to that report and the debate will ensue.

Mr HURFORD:

– In view of those remarks I will not continue with my suggestion that a motion be proposed to the affect that the House take note of the report presented by the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter). I would ask the Minister to think about that subject so that we may include the subject of this report in any consideration that occurs later in this House.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

-by leave-I am disappointed that the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) felt that the matter had been closed unsatisfactorily. As I understand it, he was a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and a part of the decisionmaking machinery which decided that in the statement it should be stated to the House that on the evidence available the Sub-committee cannot establish that such intimidation took place in relation to the Sub-committee’s investigations. I feel that I should state to the House that members of the Opposition and members of the Government on the Sub-committee and subsequently on the Joint Committee in fact approved of this statement that has been made today.

In relation to the comments by the honourable member for Corio on evidence on sensitive areas from Government officials to the Committee and to sub-committees I must say to the House that I am satisfied at the present time that we are getting adequate briefings in this area. Both the Middle East Sub-committee and the Indo-China Sub-committee I know have had confidential briefings from security agencies and I am not aware that information that has been requested is in fact being denied to the Joint Committee. I thank the House for its indulgence.

Mr SCHOLES (Corio)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SCHOLES:

– Yes, in the interpretation by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) of the remarks that I have made. The honourable member said that in saying the matter had been unsatisfactorily resolved I had indicated some dissatisfaction with the report. The fact is that something can be unsatisfactorily resolved without there being a capability of satisfactorily resolving the situation. I also point out that satisfaction as expressed by the honourable member for Higgins in respect of evidence coming before committees is, I think, limited to evidence from those people who are agreeing with and appearing with Government support. There is a quite different situation where a public servant seeks to give a contrary point of view.

page 928

COCKBURN SOUND NAVAL BASE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Mr Speaker has received letters from both the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) and the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing Order 107, Mr Speaker has selected the matter which in his opinion is the most urgent and important, that is, that proposed by the honourable member for Corio, namely:

The Government’s confusion about the future role of Cockburn Sound Naval Base especially in relation to its use by nuclear missile carrying vessels of the US Navy.

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

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

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-On 19 February a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) included a considerable announcement relating to defence matters. The Parliament has not at this stage had the benefit of an expansion of that statement, but one part of the statement is now a matter which this House and the nation must be seriously concerned about, and that is a very brief reference in that statement to an expanding role of cooperation with United States forces using facilities in Australia. It should be made quite clear that the Opposition, both in its Federal platform and in all statements which have been made in this House, supports the continuing co-operation with the United States under the ANZUS Treaty. We also have not questioned the use of Australian facilities by United States defence personnel.

I make those statements quite clear and concise at the start of these remarks because I think it is extremely unfortunate that debates on matters which are relevant to Australia and Australia’s role in decision-making processes tend to be conducted on the basis of slogans and of what is best for next week’s elections. We should at least on some occasions in this House be prepared to consider the decisions that Australia makes on the basis of what is best for Australia’s standing in the world and what is best for Australia as a nation. Clearly we are committed to co-operation with the United States in respect of defence matters and we generally agree with the United States on matters of foreign policy. We are an independent nation, therefore we have to be in a position on occasions so that we can disagree. There are some notable instances of such disagreements in the past.

This discussion of a matter of public importance comes forward as a result of suggestions and answers which were made in this House by the Prime Minister yesterday and statements which he has made outside this House and, more importantly, the failure of the Government to make any clear statement of the offers or the intentions of the Government in respect of Australian sovereignty and the development of defence co-operation and to what extent that will take place. It is fairly clear that during discussions in the United States earlier this year the Prime Minister without prior consultation with other Ministers of his Government, especially the responsible Ministers, made offers of assistance to and sought offers from the United States which were not mere extensions of the existing Australian policy but were in fact completely different policy initiatives which would place Australia’s position as an independent nation in a quite different context from that which it currently occupies. Certainly there is a difference- a vast difference between co-operation in the use of defence facilities by another nation and the establishment of a defence facility for garrisoning troops on Australian soil. That is what home basing means and that is what we are currently talking about. We are talking about a decision taken almost over coffee by the Prime Minister to turn Perth into a nuclear target without any form of defence of or consideration for the population of that city. It would be a first strike nuclear target.

If Cockburn Sound were capable of expansion and money were available for that expansion to turn it into a major nuclear vessel base for the United States with home base facilities, we would reach a situation in which nuclear weapons would in fact be stored on Australian soil, which is contrary to the existing understood policy of both parties in this Parliament, because there cannot be nuclear carrying vessels home ported without facilities to store the weapons when the vessels are under repair or when they are in port. So nuclear weapons would in fact at that stage be stationed on Australian soil. We would be a home base for major strike units of the United States fleet. In that context we would certainly be targeted as a prime nuclear target. It may be arguable that North West Cape or Pine Gap is not necessarily a prime nuclear target. But a major naval installation with operational nuclear weapons certainly would be.

We are not in a position to know what the Government has offered because I doubt that the Prime Minister himself knows and based on the only reports available to the Australian community as to what took place at the ANZUS meetings in Washington neither do any of the Ministers who were present. It appears that the United States assumptions were different from those which are now said to be the responses of the Australian Government. Did we in fact make an offer through the Prime Minister as a nation to be part of an international commando force to go with armed forces into trouble spots wherever required and most likely without any consultation with the Australian Government? The Cuba of the West! Did we make that offer? The Government has now denied that it made the offer. We do not know what the Prime Minister actually said in consultation. Have we asked the United States to meet the cost of building up Cockburn Sound to a size and capacity which would accommodate major United States naval fleet units? Technical advice given to the United States Senate Foreign Affairs Committee last year indicated that Cockburn Sound met very few of the requirements of the United States for the basing of vessels. There has been constant pressure from Australia for the use of that base. We must have a suspicion at least that that pressure is applied not because we want the United States to use the base but because we want the United States to pay for the expansion of the base to make it usable by Australian forces.

We should remember the record of the Government. Three days before the 1 977 State election in Western Australia it was stated that two destroyers and two submarines of the Royal Australian Navy would be based at Cockburn Sound, thus making it a permanent operative home naval base facility. By a mere coincidence, four days before the 1980 State election in Western Australia the Prime Minister announced that the Government had taken a decision to home-base vessels- he did not specify the number on this occasion- at Cockburn Sound.

Mr Martyr:

– We won both those elections, didn’t we?

Mr SCHOLES:

– Yes, and I think I would be less than proud to win elections if I had to tell lies to do so. The facts are that the 1977 announcement was made without any prior planning of what the Government intended to do. It was like many defence announcements- a set of words without any follow-up or practical consideration. Now to all intents and purposes we are offering to hand over to the United States a major defence installation in Australia. The United States is an ally but its foreign policy does not always coincide with ours. I know it is nice to run the slogans that it always does, but some honourable members, including the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), will remember that in 1963 this country was on the verge of being prepared to go to war over Indonesian claims to the territory of Dutch New Guinea. We were opposing those claims to the extent that we even bought the Fills, but the United States announced that because of pressures and requirements in other places in the world Indonesia could have West Irian. It was not a decision favoured by Australia and certainly it was not a decision which we would have supported publicly. It was not a decision which even now could be said to be a correct one.

Recently in an interview on a radio program the Prime Minister equivocated when asked whether Australia had offered base facilities at Cockburn Sound to the United States. He also expanded his answer considerably. In answering a question the Prime Minister said that the offer had not been rejected or withdrawn. He also made this rather wide statement:

We had offered the use of facilities across a wide range of fronts and the Americans are examining what they want to pick up.

I would like to hear the Prime Minister set out in this House exactly what limits there are on the endangering of Australian centres of population by turning them into prime nuclear targets as a result of the establishment of military facilities. Let us remember that a nuclear strike against a target in Australia would be given a considerably lower priority for an American response than a target in the United States would. A nuclear strike against Perth would not be regarded as a direct strike against the United States and the response would probably be against a Soviet target outside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. So at the moment Perth is a first strike target but would not have a first retaliation rating. I am sure that the Government does not intend to commit any funds to protect the population of Perth. The serious question is where Australia will stand if we take the decision to provide military bases on Australian soil for the Americans to operate from.

Mr Neil:

– It will stand as part of the free world.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I think we would be kneeling in the free world; that is exactly the status we would deserve. A good ally can also be one which stands on its own feet. I do not think the honourable member for St George would understand that. There is no need for a nation such as Australia to crawl and for its Prime Minister to sit up and beg like a canine friend wanting a pat. The facts are that our independence and our right to make decisions on the commitments we will make internationally and otherwise have to be important to us. When we wish to make independent decisions in the interests of the Australian people or of Australia as a whole, we must be capable of making those decisions. They cannot be made if we are seen by the world as a dependant rather than as an ally. Certainly the Prime Minister’s position in the Lancaster House talks on Rhodesia could not have been what it was had we not been seen to be an independent nation expressing our own views rather than a nation under suspicion of extending other people’s views.

There are serious doubts about the integrity of the policies which are being put forward by this Government as having real meaning and consequence for Australia. The facts which must emerge and which Australians must consider are that the Government talks a lot about defence, does little and is prepared to sacrifice significant Australian sovereignty if in return it can find someone else to pay the price that it is not prepared to meet for defence facilities which it would like to have but which do not hold enough priority for it to invest money in. Unless the Americans build a facility at Cockburn Sound before 1983, the Government will then make the same offer to base United States destroyers or other vessels in that area as it is making today.

Mr Neil:

-Do you support ANZUS?

Mr SCHOLES:

– Had the honourable member been in the House when I started my speech he would have heard that statement. I think it is unfortunate that too much consideration is given in this House to electoral effect and that not enough is given to the importance of Australia’s standing. We have witnessed the Prime Minister crying crocodile tears and heard him say much about bilateral arrangements. We have never seen him offer basic information to the Opposition. Now we have before us many statements in various documents about what Australian sovereignty we have offered other people, but this House has not heard the detailed statements which the Parliament is entitled to hear.

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

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– My friend the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) commenced his speech with a fervent expression of support for the ANZUS Treaty. I am bound to say that I will seek to prove that his speech represents as explicit a repudiation of the ANZUS Treaty as any I could imagine. I am sorry that the honourable gentleman has introduced this quite unnecessary matter of public importance this afternoon. For nearly five years now in the position of Minister for Defence I have sought to cultivate in this House and, I hope, in the country something of a bipartisan approach to the problems of defence in the country. After a very long time as a member of this House I have a deep personal view that it is to no avail any party taking the view that electoral gain is to be made out of the defence field. We are, I trust, one people with one nation. Defence planning today is too complex and too expensive to be exposed to the accident and to the caprice of the electorate. I implore my honourable friend to reflect most earnestly on the clear need for greater bipartisanship to be displayed in defence matters. It saddens me that the honourable gentleman this afternoon has invited the House to consider a matter of public importance in the terms that he has put before us. I seek to illustrate the difficulty in which the honourable gentleman finds himself. Article II of the ANZUS Treaty states:

In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this treaty the Parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

That treaty was signed in 1951. What the honourable gentleman has put to the House in his argument this afternoon is this: ‘Oh well, if Article II states that, we are at liberty to be selective about it. Those things that touch us one way we will have a look at; those things that we look upon with disfavour, we will chuck out’. In other words, the honourable gentleman’s approach to the ANZUS Treaty is to select those matters that please and reject those that displease.

The honourable gentleman has mentioned sovereignty. I would have thought that the invitation, the offer to participate with and assist the United States in discharging the massive and crippling burden which she discharges in the world today in the defence field was an exercise of sovereignty, not abandonment of sovereignty. I will display to the honourable gentleman and to the House the enormous burden that the United States is discharging today in the whole field of defence. But, first of all, let me turn to the allegation made by the honourable gentleman that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) went off to the United States and made all sorts of offers and suggestions without consultation with the other two Ministers who were primarily concerned. I have seen that allegation published elsewhere by some erstwhile major who is a scribbler of sorts. The simple truth is that on 2 1 January my friend the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) and I were with the Prime Minister in Melbourne. I am not in the habit of whistling up everybody to be on display when matters of high public importance are being discussed by a small group of Ministers. There was nothing that my right honourable friend discussed in the United States that both the Foreign Minister and I were not privy to before he left. All of us were determined that there should be placed before the United States without any ambiguity whatsoever the clear commitment by the Australian Government- and I trust by the Australian people- that we would seek to help the United States wherever we could.

Let me say this to the honourable gentleman: If he looks at a map of the Eurasian continent he will come to two conclusions: Firstly, how fragile the military balance in that area is and, secondly, that there is but one power on earth that can match the military preponderance of the Soviet Union and that is the United States of America. In that area we find some of the classic focal points of maritime history. I refer to the Strait of Hormuz- I will say something about that laterthe Suez Canal, the Strait of Malacca and round the Cape. They are four of the seven classic focal points of maritime history. The Arabian trade accounts for in the order of a thousand ships a day and trade with the Far East accounts for 1,300 ships a day in that area. If we put them on end from London to Edinburgh and back that would account for the numbers of ships that sail in that area. There was a time prior to 1 963 when the world could look upon what Joseph Conrad called not the use of the sea but the exploitation of the highways of the sea when those highways were free and could be used freely. That is no longer the case today. I shall adopt, with respect, the language used by the then Secretary of State for the United States Navy when appearing before a congressional committee. Speaking of his own country, he had this to say:

We are an island; for us, use of the seas is not just convenient- it is vital. The Soviet Union, a great land power, has much less need for access to the sea. Why, then, does she continue to strengthen both her already powerful naval fleet, including naval aviation, and her sizeable merchant marine? I believe it is because the Soviets correctly perceive that any faltering in our resolution to maintain maritime superiority could make the seas the Achilles heel of the United States and the free world.

That is us. He continued:

To the extent, then, that they have the capability to carry out effective sea denial, they have an option for economic blackmail or strangulation, all with the gravest consequences, and all below the nuclear threshold.

The world did not believe Adolf Hitler when he wrote Mein Kampf and apparently there is something in the air that mankind breathes today that makes it disposed not to believe the warnings. Admiral Gorshkov, in his book The Sea Power of the State, wrote:

Soviet sea power, merely a minor defensive arm in 1933, has become the optimum means to defeat the imperialist enemy, and the most important element in the Soviet arsenal, to prepare the way for a Communised world.

That was not the Prime Minister of Australia or Killen speaking; it was Admiral Gorshkov, who built up the second greatest fleet in the history of the world. Why did he say that? I remind my friends, not in a spirit of the hostility, to look at the map. They will see those sea lanes- the highways, as Joseph Conrad described them. It was left to a Russian no less- Czar Peter I- to say:

  1. . every Ruler who has a land Army has only one hand, but he who has a fleet has both hands.

The Soviet Union today has two hands and is using them. I remind my honourable friend that it was only a few weeks ago that I implored him to look at a map of the Persian Gulf area to see Afghanistan in relation to the Strait of Hormuz and to bear in mind the enormous amount of oil that flows through there to keep this country, the United States, the whole of Western Europe and Japan going. The Russians have shown themselves to be a very patient people. They may not take action today, but what of five, fifteen or 20 years? The Russians are prepared to wait.

The Prime Minister made the following offer to the United States: ‘How can we help you?’ The Russians have a large army already in close propinquity of the Strait of Hormuz. In order to maintain the military balance in that area, the only power, I repeat, on earth that can exercise the countervailing influence, the counterweight, to the Soviet military preponderance in the area- the United States- must exercise and maintain its logistic supplies across thousands and thousands of miles. Is it not a sober consideration for men and women of goodwill to say to an ally: ‘How can we help you?’ I repeat- I have never disguised this-that I have said to the United States authorities and to British authorities: ‘There is Cockburn Sound. Come and use it. We will be happy to see you ‘. I do not propose to resile from that statement.

Let me say this to the honourable gentleman: Two United States submarines- the Haddock and the Los Angeles- will be in Cockburn Sound very shortly. They are both nuclear powered submarines. Am I to understand from listening to the wild, chimerical arguments from the member for Corio that on that day Perth, Fremantle and Cockburn Sound will be prime nuclear targets? What nonsense! Is the honourable gentleman serious when he says: ‘You are going to pick out one part of the world and make that a prime nuclear target’? Let me tell my honourable friend that I happen to hold very strongly to the view that the possibility of a limited nuclear war is very remote indeed. I see nothing but the end for the whole of mankind if we start down that track. That is a personal philosophy that I hold deeply. I find it a nonsense proposition that the honourable member should say: ‘Well, there it is. If the United States does take up the Prime Minister’s offer that area will become the one prime nuclear target in the world’. That is an unreal proposition.

Let me refer my honourable friend to a view which was put by a man with whom I sat in the House for years. We have remained friends although we were political rivals. I refer to the former Prime Minister and honourable member for Werriwa. Only four years ago during a debate in this House on visits by nuclear powered warships Mr Whitlam said:

Before I proceed I should make it plain that there is regrettably in the public mind a great deal of confusion about nuclear ships. There is a difference between nuclear armed ships and nuclear powered ships. Nuclear armed shipspresumably only nuclear armed naval ships- have come to Australia for very many years. They have come from several powers. Successive governments have accepted that naval ships these days are quite likely to be nuclear armed. It is impossible to expect the navies of other countries to specify for public consumption which of their ships are nuclear armed and which are not so that any country which is host to those ships may require that only those which are non nuclear armed can come to the ports. If that information and that requirement are imposed it becomes a matter of public knowledge which of the ships in any particular navy are nuclear armed and which may not be.

I remind the honourable gentleman that this is what was said by a friend of a lot of us, the former member for Werriwa. I thought that was a thoroughly rational statement. But the honourable gentleman today sought to take his party a distance away from that rationality.

I think the House should not speculate upon Soviet intentions and to say: ‘Well, they are there in Afghanistan today, 90,000 of them, establishing facilities which give every intention of permanence. There it is; they occupy one of the most strategic salients in the world.’ I repeat that one of the most strategic salients in the world is occupied today by the Soviet Union for a reason which it has not stated. There is no point in speculating about it.

We must look at Soviet capabilities. That is what Admiral Gorshkov has built up. He has survived purge after purge within the Soviet political framework. He has shown that he is durable in that sense and for that, if no other reason, he is entitled to admiration. But he has built up this enormous sea power. If honourable members read his book The Sea Power of the State they cannot escape from the conclusion that it is as the Admiral tells us for the purpose of spreading Soviet influence right throughout the world.

The statistics, I know, do not impress people. Admiral Doenitz started World War II with 50 diesel-electric submarines. Today there are 350 submarines in the Soviet inventory, 1 50 of which are nuclear powered. The Soviet Union launches one every six weeks. Why? That is the question. Only a few days ago I received from the man who made that statement- Mr Claytor who was at the time Secretary of State for the Navy and who is now the Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of Defence- a very generous personal letter. Am I to reply to that letter in the next day or so and say: ‘I was very glad, Graham, to get your letter. P.S. We will not be welcoming you or the United States ships to Cockburn Sound ‘? I make it quite clear on behalf of my right honourable friend, the Government he leads and Government supporters, the United States Navy always has been welcome at Cockburn Sound and it is doubly welcome today.

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

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

– I am sure that the House is eternally grateful to the

Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) for his brief lecture on history and geography. However, what we are concerned about really is the future. It is no good for the Minister to come in here and say that he is not interested in making defence an election issue, that he is not interested in the electoral gains that might come from it. The Minister said that he fears leaving the complex issues of defence to the caprice of the electorate. It might be as well if the Minister were for a start to level with the electorate as to what he intends with this country’s defence today and tomorrow.

Just take this point of electoral consequences. My friend, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), has already pointed out that this Minister seems to have a propensity for making statements in relation to defence on the eve of elections. But that did not start with him. Oh, no! We have to go back to 1 966 which is when Prime Minister Holt first elevated Cockburn Sound into the area of an election issue. Prime Minister Gorton revived it in 1969 and fortuitously, just before the 1972 election, was able to commence construction of the Cockburn Sound facility. Then, of course, in 1977 the Present Minister for Defence promised to home base Australian vessels in Cockburn Sound. Nothing happened. So in 1980- just a few weeks ago- he was able to make that commitment again, almost unchanged, to home base Australian vessels in Cockburn Sound. Cockburn Sound has become some sort of triennial phoenix. Every three years it bobs up in all its magnificence just at the time of an approaching election.

What has happened as far as Cockburn Sound is concerned is that the Government has become desperate. It has for years wanted the United States of America to move in and occupy the Cockburn Sound base. Prime Minister Holt obviously had this in mind in 1966. Gorton offered it to the United States in 1970 and Defence Secretary Laird said at that time that, when circumstances were appropriate, they would use it. But we find that up to this point the United States has not accepted the offer and this Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, has now become desperate. His desperation was made even greater when he discovered that the United Staes mission of defence officials looking for additional military facilities in the Indian Ocean area bypassed Australia. It went to Kenya, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Somalia to look for additional military facilities for the United States. It did not come to Australia. As a result of that slight, the Prime Minister decided to demand that the United States make use of the Cockburn Sound facilities.

The other point that has to be made is the very great difference between visits by foreign vessels whether they be from the United States, France, the United Kingdom, India or whatever, and home porting foreign vessels on the Australian mainland. That is what is being proposed and that is what we fear very greatly. It is about time the Minister levelled with the Australian people and told them that he is proposing to embark on a totally new and totally unexplored area of home basing foreign nuclear powered and armed vessels, right in the bosom of my electorate, right in the midst of the Perth metropolitan area.

The attempts by this Government to utilise fully Cockburn Sound have been desultory indeed. What does Cockburn Sound have at the moment? It has one Attack class patrol boat with a bofors gun that sometimes works. It is all very well for the Minister to threaten me with the fury of a bofors gun. How would he like to be bobbing around in the Indian Ocean with nothing between him and salvation but a World War II bofors gun that is likely to pack up at any moment? That is the nature of this Government’s commitment to Cockburn Sound and that is the reason for its desperation at this point. Of course, when the Attack class is finally phased out and replaced by the Fremantle class patrol boat there will be one of those vessels in Cockburn Sound. We were told up until a few weeks ago that this vessel too would be armed with a bofors gun. I am now happy to say that the Minister has decided to review that decision. But I am not happy to say that he has been prepared to exclude the possibility of arming those vessels with some kind of missile capability. It seems to me that the highly skilled and highly motivated members of the Australian Navy deserve far better treatment from this Minister and this Government than the worn out tired old equipment that it is prepared to give them.

As I have said, there is a very great difference between having occasional visits from foreign vessels and home basing. This is really where the dangerous situation arises. We know that as far back as 1969 a Liberal Minister for Defence admitted that a United States communications base at North West Cape would become a target in the event of a nuclear war. We know that in 1975 Schlesinger gave testimony to a Senate committee in the United States in which he referred not to a major nuclear war but rather to a limited nuclear war. He was asked in what sort of targets the Soviets would be interested under his flexible targeting, limited nuclear war concepts. He said:

  1. . the Soviets are not necessarily limited to the strike we have outlined here (i.e., one against US missile silos) . . . they could, for example, just decide to go after the communication systems to our submarines.

I mention that because in Senator Muskie ‘s State there is a communication facility at Cutler, Maine.

Mr Schlesinger, instead of using the example of Cutler, Maine, might just as well have used the North West Cape because it is an identical facility. It is a communications facility for US submarines. There are circumstances in which it might be preferable for an enemy of the United States with intercontinental ballistic missiles capability to knock out a facility away from the United States mainland. I realise that the Minister for Defence dismisses the concept of a limited nuclear war even though it has been embraced by former Defence Secretary Schlesinger and is the conventional wisdom of the United States at this moment. The Minister for Defence in the Australian Government dismisses it. Yet it is a possibility which we cannot ignore. What is now becoming more and more clear is that even in a limited nuclear conflict a facility such as the North West Cape becomes a nuclear target. This view has been supplemented in Australia in evidence to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in June and August 1976. As the evidence of one of the witnesses, Mr G. Jukes, a senior fellow at the Research School of Pacific Studies at the Australian National University, relates specifically to Cockburn Sound as to what this Government now intends, I will quote what he said:

Cockburn Sound comes into an entirely different category because of its location in a major population area. While it remains a secondary RAN facility, it probably does not merit a Soviet nuclear weapon. But should there be grounds to associate it with the follow-on to Polaris and Poseidon, as would be the case if visits from United States nuclear-armed warships are solicited with an excess of zeal, it will certainly become a Soviet nuclear target.

That is what the Minister has in store for us. That is what he has in mind for the people of Perththe home basing of nuclear powered and nuclear armed United States vessels in Cockburn Sound. What this indicates quite clearly is that the Prime Minister, this Minister and other Canberra based defence strategists are prepared to sacrifice the people of Perth. They know that it would be a nuclear target. They know that it would be an extraordinarily attractive target for any enemy of the United States because they would be able mortally to bruise the United States without actually threatening the United States mainland. That becomes a very enticing prospect in a situation where there is a particularly limited nuclear war.

Let me just turn to one other danger associated simply with visits from nuclear powered warships. I refer to the fact that in July of last year the United States New York, which is a nuclear powered submarine, was to visit the city after which it took its name. However, the Mayor of New York, Mayor Koch, refused permission for a vessel of the navy of his own country to enter the harbour of the city of New York. The reasons, he said, were two-fold. In the first case there was a risk of fuel leaks or explosions occurring in this heavily populated area. Admittedly, Perth is not as heavily populated as New York, but there are very many people whom I hold very precious. Secondly, the Mayor believed that there was a risk terrorists might seize the vessel and hold the city to ransom and that this out weighed the benefits of any visit.

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

Mr MARTYR:
Swan

-Like the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), I felt sorry that bipartisanship has vanished on this occasion. I also felt sorry for the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) who stumbled around and did not seem to be quite sure of what he was here for. He knows that we have an alliance with the United States. He knows that we really should be for it and supporting it. There was the wildly flapping and wildly quacking left wing which seems to have become rampant within the Australian Labor Party in the last couple of days. That flapping and quacking were the reasons why he spoke today. There are other prompters, but it is clear to me- I think to everybody in this House who listened- that there is a unity ticket between elements in the media and the Opposition. The Opposition has been encouraged to pursue this ridiculously worded discussion of a matter of so-called public importance. Personally, I am glad that it did. I am glad that the Opposition fell for it because it gave the Minister for Defence and me the opportunity to point out quite clearly that the defence of Australia is the most vital thing that any government can be concerned with.

Following from that, we must be mindful and willing to accept whatever alliances suit us. The United States alliance does suit us at the moment and is helpful to us. Accordingly, following from that, all United States Navy ships, whether they are nuclear armed, nuclear powered, a combination of both, or whether they are conventionally powered, are welcome in Western Australia. I speak on behalf, not only of the Government and the Minister for Defence, but also of all Western Australian members of Parliament with the exception of the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins). We welcome the American presence. The ships can come here any time they like. I might say that we should undertake arrangements to circulate the speech of the honourable member for Fremantle in the letterboxes in Fremantle. He does not even know that Cockburn Sound is not in his electorate. The Cockburn Sound naval base, Garden Island, is in the electorate of my colleague, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Bungey). It was never in the electorate of the honourable member for Fremantle.

The honourable member for Fremantle wants a nuclear free zone around Fremantle. He is engaged with a whole lot of half wits in that city who want a nuclear free zone. We all know what this means. It means that we should abandon the defence of Australia. We should forget about defending ourselves. We should allow anyone to lob anything they like on us and we would not defend ourselves. That is the sort of nonsense that the honourable member and his colleagues in the Fremantle Council have been going on with. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to report to you that they were absolutely abolished.

Mr Young:

– The Deputy Speaker likes them.

Mr MARTYR:

-Maybe he does, but they were sent away packing. They were sent away packing because there are some sensible elements in Fremantle who did not want to be associated with this nonsense. The honourable member is leaving the chamber. It is no wonder. He ought to be ashamed to come in here and ask for a nuclear free zone in Fremantle. The only thing I am surprised about is that my future opponent in Swan has also associated himself with this ridiculous nonsense. It is a shame and a pity to see someone who is normally deserving of respect being associated with such nonsense. On the other hand, the poor fellow is only following the present line of left wing ideology which is now riding rampant in the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) is captive to it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) is captive to it. All those who hope to replace both of them are also captives. When the Opposition loses the next election- it is going to lose it because of having policies that are as silly as these- the Deputy Leader of the Opposition also will probably be replaced in time because he will keep on losing. What honourable members on the other side of the House cannot understand is that the attitudes they have had, not just for the last couple of years, but since 1955 are not acceptable to the Australian people. I admit that there was an aberration for a short time, but the Australian people woke up to the Australian Labor Party. When is it going to wake up to itself?

I join with the Minister for Defence. We want a bipartisan foreign policy and a bipartisan defence policy. We want everyone in this country to be aware of Australia’s situation. We want everyone to understand that we must defend ourselves and understand the difficult geographical position that Australia is in. We have appealed and asked for bipartisanship. It is not forthcoming. The Opposition still persists in having these attitudes which are totally alien to the majority of the Australian people. Every time the question of the American alliance comes up, every time there is a question of our using the assistance the United States can give us, whether it is nuclear or conventional, the Opposition takes this funny attitude. We know that most members of the Opposition, in their hearts, are probably well disposed towards the alliance. They must be because in some respects Australia has depended upon it and very greatly in the last couple of years. How much longer do they expect the Americans to come to our assistance and to keep making offers when there is a section of the community- a small section, and the Labor Party represents it- that does not want that American alliance but wants to drive the Americans away? That is absolutely crazy to those of us on this side of the House who have the interest of this country at heart and who want Opposition members to join with us in helping to defend this country and to preserve all the things we know are important in this part of the world. We offer Opposition members this opportunity time after time, but they reject it. They come forward with piddling, puerile, piffling matters of public importance such as this which are of no consequence at all.

They should be ashamed. They should be ashamed to be associated with people in the Press Gallery, the left wing of the Labor Party, the crazy conservation groups outside and the left wing trade unions and the pro-communists within those unions who are determined to destroy this country. No wonder the Australian voter will not have the Labor Party as a government. I have said the same sort of thing time after time in this place. Labor members say the same sort of thing back to me, but I do not take any notice because I have been put here by the people to see first and foremost that Australia is defended. Labor members are pushed along sometimes by pro-communists and certainly by rabid left wing ideology. They have driven the

Labor Party into the position it is now in. The Labor Party is in a corner it cannot get out of. In order to fulfil the expectations of the people outside the Parliament who promote the Labor Party, Labor members have to put forward matters of public importance such as this.

This has not always been the case. There was a time, not so long ago, in fact in 1974, when Mr Barnard- and I do not know how Labor members can deny him now- in answering a question had this to say:

There are long-standing arrangements under which ships from the navies of friendly and allied countries visit each other’s ports and facilities, by permission in each case of the host Government. When the facility at Cockburn Sound is completed I would expect that under these arrangements there would be calls there too from time to time by ships from friendly and allied navies, including the USN and RN. No arrangements beyond this long-standing practice have been entered into or are contemplated.

That is what the Labor Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, had to say.

Mr McLean:

– But he was a moderate, was he not?

Mr MARTYR:

-So it is said, and I think he was too. I think he would be ashamed of the attitudes Opposition members, particularly the honourable member for Fremantle, are putting forward today. Why the people of Fremantle elect him, I do not know. I know why the people of Swan elect me but why the voters elect him, I do not know. He has to understand that Western Australia is the most isolated State with the smallest population and the greatest riches. Yet he is doing the best he can to drive away the greatest and most important ally we have. Time after time in this chamber the Minister for Defence has made clear what is necessary if Australia is to survive. The Minister brings forth documentation; he is sincere and Opposition members know that he is genuine. So why do they not support him? I think it is absolutely deplorable that a so-called matter of public importance can be put forward by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), who in so many other respects is such a sensible fellow. I cannot understand it. Possibly he has been prompted by those wild left wingers, who have now elected two more to the Opposition front bench. This is what is pushing the honourable member for Corio, and I am sorry for him. He can be absolutely certain that what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had to say in this House the other day about whatever arrangements will be entered into will be adhered to. The one thing that we can be absolutely certain about- and I join with the Minister for Defence in saying this- is that United States ships are welcome, any of them and as many of them, nuclear powered or conventional, as the United States wants to send.

Mr SCHOLES (Corio)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Armitage)Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SCHOLES:

– Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been substantially misrepresented by the interpretation put on my remarks by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). Whilst political debate is nice fun, because this matter is of importance I do not want it left on the record that I had saidand I did not say it, despite the Minister’s remarks- that the Opposition was opposed to the use by the United States of facilities in Australia. What I did say- and I make it quite clear to the House- was that the Opposition is opposed to the establishment of permanent basing facilities in Australia where Australia considers it is not in her best interests. It is not a left wing plot for someone to call himself an Australian, despite the shame that Government members have because of their Australian heritage.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The discussion is now concluded.

Mr Bryant:

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is the honourable member taking a point of order?

Mr Bryant:

– No. I want to speak in the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The discussion is now concluded.

Mr Bryant:

– The Government can move the gag if it wishes, but I just want to say that I have never heard such arrant nonsense in a proper debate as I have just heard from the Minister for Defence and the honourable member for Swan. They acted like a couple of political idiots.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

page 937

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 5 March.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Act to bind the Commonweath).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– In dealing with clause 5, the Opposition will be moving an amendment which was also moved to clause 3. It is a fundamental amendment. Clause 5 states:

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

Our suggestion, as the amendment will show, is that the Committee should omit the words ‘but does not bind the Crown in right of a State or of the Northern Territory’ and substitute ‘and of each State and the Northern Territory’. This indicates that we want the Human Rights Commission to be an effective commission, one that can deal with the laws as they affect human rights and matters which, as we were at pains to point out on previous occasions, relate to people’s rights in the main and which are at present controlled by State law. So if there is to be any effective control and effective examination of human rights and if we are to implement what we have told the United Nations, namely, that we will ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and bring into Australian law the human rights therein expressed, it follows that we should say that human rights legislation will apply to State laws and the laws of the Northern Territory. Accordingly, the amendment will be moved on that basis and in that spirit. We are mindful of the fact that the Government is taking the view that it does not want its law to override State law; it merely wants to set up some sort of tame commission to which we may refer matters and which in turn will report to a Minister on whether laws are in accordance with the Covenant. That is no way to protect the rights of Australian citizens. It is no way to endorse this Covenant. It is no way to ratify the Covenant. Despite the protestations of the Government the Covenant specifically provides that its provisions should extend to all parts of Federal States without any limitation or exception. The High Court of Australia, in a series of judgments which go back to Burgess’s case, clearly established that if we enter into an international covenant or an international treaty under the external affairs power of the Constitution any legislation introduced pursuant to that treaty or covenant may take precedence of State laws.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– Not in all cases of external treaties.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I put it to the honourable member that all laws made pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would so operate. Whilst the honourable member is entitled to express his views, I am clearly making the point- with which I think he would agree- that if this Bill that we are now passing does not even apply to the States or the

Northern Territory we are exempting from protection 14 million of our population. That is the extent of the exemption. That leaves them in the control, at the whim and the behest, of whoever is passing laws in our States or in the Northern Territory. As we know, there are laws passed in the States which relate -

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– What were you doing in the State Parliament for years if you take this attitude?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I do not have to give any lengthy explanation about what my personal behaviour has been.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! The honourable member may wait and take his turn speaking in Committee.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. The point we are trying to make is that in this human rights Covenant there are a number of matters which relate to rights of people, such as rights of assembly which are being denied in Western Australia. Yet we do not see any amendments moved by the members from Western Australia to protect the rights of assembly of trade unionists and others. If there is a rejection of those rights there should be an appeal to a judicial tribunal, as this Covenant provides. There is no provision for such appeal. We also complain quite bitterly about the discriminatory laws operating in Queensland, particularly against Aborigines who can be denied rights in their settlements. Surely that is discrimination, which is foremost in Article 2 which covers discrimination on the base of race and colour. These are matters that are not to be approved of in any way, yet they occur in Queensland.

There is a right to demonstrate in a normal democratic fashion providing the public interest is in no way jeopardised. That is not applicable in Queensland. We do not see members from Queensland suggesting that the State laws ought to be in any way subject to these criteria. In fact, at the Premiers Conference when it was first suggested by Federal Ministers that this Covenant should apply to the States it was loudly objected to by the Premiers of Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. Is this Bill to be just a charade, a Bill containing a statement of a principle and nothing more? This is a legislative chamber. If the honourable members have any principles at all, any conscience about anything at all, they at least might try to make it operate in making law, and not just bring in wordy statements which mean nothing if the law is not to be changed.

In the last few weeks we had a long debate here about the question of the rights of the unborn. But it could not change the law because an amendment suggesting that the legislation might apply to the States was defeated by the same people that moved that amendment. It is hypocritical, to say the least, to be using this forum to talk about statements of principle but do not do anything about the law. If the principles of honourable members opposite are so entrenched, as they ought to be, why do they not do something about this matter in the States in which they live? If they cannot do it there why do they not pass laws in this Parliament that could override those State laws that they say do not conform with those principles?

The proposed amendment would give this Bill much greater power. It would affect all Australian laws relating to the human rights of people. It would be tangible evidence of our bona fides as members of the International Human Rights Commission. We should practice what we preach. We should introduce into Australian law a set of criteria which could guarantee that people would have a right to object to a court about breaches of their rights. In other words, they would be enforceable rights. The principles in the Bill are not enforceable, but we propose that they be enforceable. Thereby, we would guarantee an effective democratic system. I move:

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) has gone to the heart of the matter: Is this a Human Rights Commission Bill or a States rights commission Bill? We have to decide whether those things in which we have a firm belief about human rights transcend any consideration of constitutions or any established practice of the last 70 or 80 years. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked are we going to treat all Australians as worthy of the consideration of this Parliament in this matter, or are we not? This legislation will cover perhaps 250,000 people in Australia in the general sense, and in those particular senses that apply to Commonwealth law, I suppose the 14 million of them.

I am sure that if the Committee examines this matter thoroughly it will come to the same conclusion as we on this side of the chamber, as was implied by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) in a remark he made during an earlier debate: Surely we are one people on this one continent, or something to that effect. What is the score in this matter? There are a number of things that we would have thought were basic to Australian society: Freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of association, equality before the law and equality at the ballot box. In one way or another some of these rights are transgressed by various States.

I raise the point that concerns the people of Australia at the moment; that is, the situation of the Aboriginal people of Australia and their rights, particularly their rights to their land. Their rights will be effectively enforced only if the Australian Government, through its powers in this Parliament and through the authority conferred upon it, takes the matter up and uses its authority against certain States. At present there is what we might call a great deal of uneasiness, rising to the point of tumult, amongst Aboriginal people in Western Australia and South Australia about the situation of their rights to their land. In both instances they are in the hands of governments which do not believe in their rights. This is a long fought argument. I thought that this Parliament at least had given its imprimatur and had adopted these rights as national principle, and therefore the rest of Australia should also. I appeal to the Committee to take heed of this and to take note of what the Deputy Leader’s amendment really means.

I am absolutely astonished that at this stage in the development of our Federation we should have such a clause in a Bill dealing with human rights. Clause S states:

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

Instead of going through all the trouble we have with this piece of legislation, we could have brought it in as an Australian Capital Territory ordinance and had it apply to .this part of Australia and left it at that. We have gone through an enormous exercise over the last few years in consideration of this matter in committees, by references, by studies and disputes, by demonstrations, by arguments in both Houses and passing it backwards and forwards and here we are still persisting with what is surely an anachronism, the preservation of State rights in this matter.

I am just thinking for a moment on some of the things to which we ought to apply ourselves, apart from the land rights of the Aboriginal people, apart from the rights of people to demonstrate freely whether in the streets or at public gatherings anywhere. There are some features of the electoral laws of the States which are against the general principles of the Australian Constitution and the Australian way of doing things. There are still elective bodies in Australia which are not elected by adult suffrage. I find that intolerable at this stage. In Victoria it still applies only in municipal elections but in South Australia I think there is now adult suffrage for elections to the upper House. I do not think that is the case in Tasmania yet and I am not certain about the score in Western Australia. This has been a long slow haul. These reforms will finally be brought about only if this Parliament exercises its authority, establishes the principles and makes the legislation enforceable. Laws of this nature which cannot, or will not be enforced may as well not be passed. We live in a world in which pious resolutions produce very few results against the kind of ruthless and unscrupulous opposition that we in the Labor movement have run up against.

There is a continual upheaval in the industrial scene, caused sometimes by the intransigence of employers and sometimes by the interference of governments and sometimes, I have no doubt, by the intransigence of the people in the workforce. The whole of the operations of this Parliament ought to be aimed at evolving some kind of national scheme which will produce an acceptable result, an acceptable system of guaranteeing human rights and freedoms across the continent. Once again I make an appeal, in particular on behalf of members of the Aboriginal race who are still beset with the greed of those who place diamonds before people, uranium before people, bauxite or even cattle before people in these instances. It has been a long, hard fight. I thought that we had won it. I believe that we have won it in the community as far as the exerting of actual pressures against Aboriginals in local society is concerned, when anyone takes up the issue, but I mast admit that I am a bit shaken by the fact that there still exist in the governments of South Australia and Western Australia, and notoriously that of Queensland, people who will attempt to subvert a free society and deprive the Aboriginal people of their rights. If the Bill does not take that into account we might as well not bother with it at all. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will support what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has had to say on the matter.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I support the statements of the Deputy Leader of the -Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) on this aspect. It would be purposeless for the Parliament to talk about human rights in theory onlynot providing any effective machinery for granting the average Australian citizen recourse to the resources of this Parliament on the national issue of human rights- by virtue of the fact that the Bill virtually confined its operations to territories which effectively were under the control of the Commonwealth.

I suppose that we are all products of our history and, because of the way in which the Austraiian nation has evolved, the reality is that if grave infringements of human rights take place they tend to take place within the States rather than within the Commonwealth territories. This is largely because it is the States which provide the legal fabric, the machinery as a result of which the rights of the individual, as against those of the States, are currently most under challenge. More people are arrested in the States because the police powers which govern civil liberties and basic human freedoms are legally entrenched within the various statutes of the States.

The Government says: ‘We will talk about human rights’, but one cannot talk about human rights in abstract. When we talk about Soviet dissenters we talk about the iniquity of a woman displaying a placard and for that offence being given seven years in gaol. That is, of course, iniquitous but it is equally iniquitous that I and my friend the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) can, as part of our civil rights, give our views on a particular issue by taking part in a demonstration in Melbourne and -

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– Did you make this argument as Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian Parliament?

Mr HOLDING:

– Of course, on a dozen occasions.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– I can see why they didn’t put you in.

Mr HOLDING:

– I am astounded at the attitude of the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). The honourable member talks in this Parliament about the abrogation of human rights in the Soviet Union, about the abrogation of human rights under a totalitarian system, and never ceases to move notices of motion. However, the moment one asks him: ‘Why are you not concerned about human rights in your own State; why are you not concerned about human rights of the average Australian citizen who happens to live in Queensland’, all of a sudden he becomes mute. It is easier for the member to wax eloquent about the problems of human rights in the Soviet Union.

Mr Hodges:

-Where is the population drift in this country?

Mr HOLDING:

– The question is not where the population drift is. Presumably what the honourable gentleman is saying is that if enough Russians move into Afghanistan that is all right; that is population drift. What utter nonsense!

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Giles)Order! This two-way discussion has gone far enough.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr HOLDING:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting, I was concerned to make the point that we have an incredible situation existing in Australia. Victorians and people living in Melbourne, such as myself and my colleagues, can involve themselves in a march or demonstration in order to draw community attention perhaps to a political, industrial or social matter of concern. That demonstration can take place peacefully without any threat of violence or without any suggestion that there is a breach of the law. If citizens from another part of the Commonwealth choose to go to Queensland to do exactly the same they could find themselves imprisoned. They are not proceeded against by a summons as they could be, but are locked up for periods from four to six hours. Then they are fined $50.

It is that kind of anomaly which the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeks to overcome. We cannot view human liberties in Australia as virtually divisible in terms of State attitudes and borders. State boundaries are something that we have inherited. On matters which go to the fundamental rights of the citizen as against the State- I use the term ‘State’ in its broadest term- it seems to me that as a national parliament we have to be prepared to assert that individual human right, when the rights of the average Australian citizen, are one and indivisible throughout the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth and the Australian people should not tolerate variations which can, in fact, infringe very severely upon the rights and liberties of Australian people depending upon the particular political philosophy or the narrow interpretation that may be imposed upon those rights and liberties by one State government. That is the difference on this new proposed clause between the approach of the Opposition and the approach of members on the Government side, although I am bound to say that some supporters of the Government in another place were not prepared to take the view that has been taken by some honourable members in this Committee. They shared the view of the Opposition that one cannot make any kind of commission effective, or deal with the question of human rights, unless one is prepared to enable the Human Rights Commission to pursue transgressions of human rights whenever and wherever they occur- that is, in whatever States those transgressions occur. That is the heart of the argument.

If, within the community of nations, Australia is wanting to assert the rights of world citizens to human freedom and liberty, we must make certain that this Parliament has put our own house in order. I am afraid that that is not the situation in Australia today. We do not have to do anything more than look at the fourth annual report of the Commissioner for Community Relations. That is a report of some 137 pages. It lists transgressions in human rights and exercises in racial discrimination that have occurred within Australia within the last 12 months. I say, as a tribute to the Commissioner that he has not been prepared to abrogate or diminish the strength of his comments. Where there have been exercises in racial discrimination which infringe on human liberties, he has been prepared to report them to the Parliament. It is extraordinary that this Parliament has not once in four years set aside any time at all to discuss one of those reports. This Parliament has not once in four years taken time off for that purpose.

Let me just deal with one of the random issues, the refusal of the Government of Queensland to allow Aboriginal women in an Aboriginal settlement to receive social service benefits to which they were entitled under the laws of the Commonwealth. I do not have the time to enlarge upon all those recorded limitations and restrictions, many of them based upon the most overt exercises involving not only the infringement of human liberties but exercises in racial discrimination which flow through to involve restrictions on human rights and freedoms. In some parts of this Commonwealth some Aboriginal citizens are treated as second class citizens, where the laws -

Mr Martyr:

– Where?

Mr HOLDING:

– If the honourable member would read the reports, if he would be prepared to be as concerned about some of the issues mentioned in those reports-and I think he is a man of conscience- he would not have to ask me where. They are detailed in a report that is of almost 200 pages. Primarily they occur in Queensland, in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia but- and I stress- no State is immune. That is why this amendment is a matter of prime concern. If we are fair dinkum about human rights we will support the proposed amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

-The amendment proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) would change the whole character of this legislation in such a way that the consequences deserve to be explored. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposes to alter the sense of clause 5 so that the Act binds the Crown in right of all of the States as well as the Commonwealth. In a shorthand way, that is the position. I think it is fair to ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition what is the consequence of what he proposes? Briefly, it would reverse the whole compact and totality of the Australian Federation. If the Human Rights Commission were to be given executive powers it would reverse that compact with the power of execution. Honourable members should appreciate that fact and they would know that what I say is totally correct.

For ten years before Federation, the States came together; they bargained together; and they ceded certain powers to the Commonwealth. Since those days there has been an enormous increase in the powers which the Commonwealth has been able to exert, both through interpretation of the High Court and also through interpretation due to the administration of economic powers. This would give that whole process an enormous shift. There are contradictions also involved in it. In a sense it would wipe out the States. If one looks at the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and if one looks at the rights which are to be covered by it- political, social, human and so on- one asks oneself: What would be left for the various States to administer? There would be nothing left for the States to administer. I am puzzled and fascinated at the fact that the two speakers who preceded me in this debate were members of State Parliaments for many years.

Mr Holding:

– That is right. We know a bit about it.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– The honourable member for Melbourne Ports was an alternative Premier in a State Parliament for a number of years. I am wondering when he went around Victoria whether he said: ‘I want you to make me Premier so that I can dismember this whole State, so that I can make of the Constitution a sword with which to cut up any State powers so that they are almost totally unrecognisable’. It is a nonsense proposition to say that most of the disputes concerning rights, whether civil, political, economic or whatever they happen to be, exist within the States because they are the areas which are left to the States except insofar as the Commonwealth has certain powers given to it. So, it is a nonsense argument to make that point. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) would realise that, with the sense of honesty that overtakes him from time to time.

Mr Holding:

– Have you looked at Article 50 of the Covenant?

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:

– Yes, I have looked at Article 50. I have also looked at the interpretation of the Burgess case to which the honourable member referred. The interpretation of that case simply means that the powers involved in an international treaty do not necessarily ipso facto reside in the central government of one of the signing states. Each case is to be judged on its merits. In that case, Latham said that in terms of aviation it was common sense, appropriate and sensible that the powers reside in the Commonwealth and that was the judgment that was made. There are grey areas here. Nevertheless honourable members cannot say that ipso facto, merely because of the accession to a treaty, the power lies with the Commonwealth in respect of these matters covered in the Covenant. Every State parliament would be operating under a falsity and under a delusion. If all the honourable members here were to campaign for or to propose the elections of the State governments they should be sufficiently straightforward to make that point. I look at the wealth of rights which are covered in the Covenant. I refer to Part I, Article 1. It states:

All peoples have the right of self-determination.

Then the rights are enumerated:

By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Take those rights of the Commonwealth away, the ones that are attendant upon those factors, and nothing is left at all. It would be difficult to say that there would be anything left. For example, the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney) last year waged a strong case in respect of a certain gentleman in Broken Hill, a gentleman called Latham. The honourable member argued very strongly that certain rights had been denied that person. The rights which had been denied that person fell under a number of those categories. But was it ever suggested either by the Opposition here or by the New South Wales Government that those rights ought then to be determined not within the New South Wales industrial jurisdiction but within and by the Commonwealth? That was never acceded to. They, in fact, conceded the point that certain obligations lay upon a different level of government

I will give another example. I take another case from last year. I take this case not to arouse any hackles or arouse any ire. In the debate on the motion moved by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) last year, which became known as the abortion debate, one of the strong arguments made was that it was not appropriate for the Commonwealth to pass legislation which would impinge upon the obligations of States in respect of the unborn child. It was said that this was a matter for State jurisdictions and that it lay within State jurisdictions, within State criminal codes and within State health administrations. On that occasion it was ceded, almost automatically and instinctively, that it lay with the rights and obligations of the States. Yet here in terms of reportage, in terms of the information which would be carried and the rights of investigation, all those rights are to be ceded to the Commonwealth. That should make it perfectly clear to the Committee that once we agree with the proposition put forward by the Opposition we come up with some enormous contradictions that lead us nowhere. The Latham case, the private member’s motion which was debated here last year and the misinterpretation of the Burgess case in the High Court in 1936 all point to this fact. I think members will agree that were this amendment to be passed an enormous power would reside in those people who could decide what they would investigate and how they would investigate it. All the smaller States would tremble and they ought to tremble because it would not be their own social patterns that would have sway; they would be subject to and become a creature of the social patterns as determined in the larger States- in the large aggregations of populations- and their civil rights would be determined in the large aggregates of populations.

Finally, civil rights are determined in a number of areas. They can be determined at a number of levels of government. If rights which are determined within a State administration are judged to be incorrect, it is for voters in those States to make their judgment and they do make their judgment from time to time. The people of South Australia, from which the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) comes, for a number of years judged that it was appropriate for the multitude of rights which were administered by that State to be determined by that State Government. In those State elections, did the honourable member say: ‘We want to strip the State of any authority or power whatsoever. Give them nothing’? That was never said. Nobody in the Opposition has said that at all. Yet that proposition is the logical consequence of the amendment moved by the Opposition. Add this amendment to what it hopes to do in terms of executive powers and in terms of the power of Executive administration and we have just that situation. I would say that those honourable members on this side of the chamber who would defeat this amendment are acting in common sense and are acting according to the federal compact which was a distribution of rights and of obligations. Were they to do otherwise it would make those people in various communities, who determine their own patterns of life, a hostage to some central authority that would impose its own authority upon them without any say whatsoever.

Mr DAWKINS:
Fremantle

– It is always distressing to hear the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) in this frame of mind because from time to time he is quite sensible. But on this occasion, once again, he has been quite absurd. What he is saying is that it is all right to have a Human Rights Commission so long as it cannot look at the area where most of the infringements of human rights in fact, occur. So long as it cannot do anything or investigate anything, he is happy to have it. That is the burden of what he is saying. What the Opposition, on the other hand, is saying is that if we are going to have a Human Rights Commission at all, for heavens sake let it do the job that it is set up to do. Let it investigate all the infringements or possible infringements of human rights that exist throughout the country. If the honourable member for Lilley was going to be at all consistent what he ought to be doing is arguing alongside the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) and the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) in saying that this Bill should not be enacted at all and that there should not be a Human Rights Commission at all because that is what they have said. If he is prepared to say that -

Mr Martyr:

– I don ‘t mind if it has any amendments in it.

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– With the greatest of respect, the honourable member for Swan commenced his speech a couple of weeks ago by saying that he wished that he did not have to vote for this measure at all but that if he did have to vote for this measure he wished that it had a particular amendment which he was pursuing. Now the honourable member for Kalgoorlie goes even further and says that we should not entertain the idea at all. If the honourable member for Lilley was prepared to go that far then at least his argument would be consistent. But what he is saying is absolute nonsense. Perhaps it is acceptable, logically, to say that Australia should never have become a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Surely if we are to become a signatory to it then we have to extend the provisions of that Covenant to all parts of Australia because otherwise it is a total nonsense.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– It does not include the distribution of power in Australia and it is not entitled to do that.

Mr DAWKINS:

-The only alternative is to go cap in hand to all those Premiers and say that we will sign this as long as they agree to extend it to the Territories bounded by their particular States. What a crazy situation that would be. Some rights would be operating in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia but not in Western Australia and Queensland. What an absurd situation it would be for us to have one standard of human rights in one part of Australia and a totally different standard of human rights in another part of Australia. That is a total nonsense. Even the honourable member for Lilley accepts the notion of uniform taxation, I suppose.

Mr Cotter:
Mr DAWKINS:

-I know that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie accepts the notion of uniform taxation. If the honourable member for Lilley accepts uniform taxation, why does he not also accept the proposition that uniform human and civil rights ought to be operating throughout Australia? Quite frankly there is no other way to do it than by invoking the power that the Constitution gives to the Commonwealth Parliament through its foreign affairs powers to extend the operation -

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– It does not give that power necessarily; you have misinterpreted it.

Mr DAWKINS:

-That is the power on which this amendment hangs. If the Government wants to contest it in the High Court, it can go for its life. But that is the power on which the amendment hangs. There is certainly a possibility that it would be upheld by the High Court. In fact, we would say there is a strong possibility that it would be upheld. But in any event, what is wrong with trying? The point is that there should not be a situation in which there is one standard of human rights in one part of Australia and another standard in another part of Australia.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– Civil rights -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Lilley must remain silent.

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– In any event the powers and functions of the Human Rights Commission are weak enough. The Commission really has power as proposed by this Human Rights Commission Bill only to investigate and report. What on earth is wrong with that? What is wrong with investigating and reporting on alleged breaches of human rights wherever they occur, whether they are in relation to the law of a State parliament or a law of the Commonwealth Parliament. What on earth is wrong with that? I am bound to say that the honourable member for Lilley in invoking the wisdom of the honourable member for Swan in relation to this debate -

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– I did not mention him.

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– You did.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– I did not. I did not touch on it.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! The honourable member for Fremantle will resume his seat. The Committee will come to order. Honourable members must desist from attempting to join the debate when they do not have the call from the Chair.

Mr DAWKINS:

– The honourable member for Lilley made reference in part to the amendment which the honourable member for Swan had proposed to this Bill.

Mr Kevin Cairns:

– I did not. I did not touch on it.

Mr Martyr:

– It should have been carried.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I warn the honourable member for Swan and the honourable member for Lilley.

Mr DAWKINS:

-If he did not then the only reason I misunderstood him was the volume of interjections from the honourable member for Swan, which I interpret as -

Mr Young:

– He believes in full human rights until you are born.

Mr DAWKINS:

-That is exactly right. As the honourable member for Port Adelaide says, the honourable member for Swan believes that human rights begin at conception and end with birth.

Mr Martyr:

– And when I look at you I think I am right too.

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Whatever else might be my faults, Mr Chairman, I would have thought that in this great country of Australia the honourable member for Swan would at least have acknowledged that I have some human rights- civil and political rights.

Mr Martyr:

– The only rights -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Swan is warned for the final time.

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– With the greatest respect, Mr Chairman, I think he is probably a bit tired and emotional this evening.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Fremantle must not provoke.

Mr DAWKINS:

– The extension of the powers of the Human Rights Commission into the arena of the State parliaments was brought into sharpest relief in recent times in relation to the dispute in Western Australia involving the Aboriginal people at Noonkanbah station. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie ranted last night about none of us on this side of the chamber understanding that Noonkanbah station was really only a pastoral lease and asked what right anyone who held a pastoral lease had to invoke mineral rights or to pretend to prevent those people who were exercising mineral rights from exploring and drilling on a pastoral lease. The point that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie ought to understand is that the only reason that it was necessary for the Commonwealth to provide funds for the acquisition of the Noonkanbah pastoral lease was that there was no Aboriginal land in Western Australia which the people of Noonkanbah could own. There was no Aboriginal reserve. There was no land at all with which they had any association. Therefore, it was decided the Aboriginal people at Noonkanbah should be provided with the funds to acquire that pastoral lease. The net result of that was that it did not become a pastoral lease in the normal sense of the term. It did not become a pastoral lease in the sense of the pastoral base the honourable member for Kalgoorlie owns. It became the home of these people. It also became the place where the whole of the religious and cultural traditions of these people of Noonkanbah resided. In this context Article 17 of the Covenant which this legislation seeks to introduce into Australian law provides:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence. . . .

That is the important point for the people of Noonkanbah. Noonkanbah is their traditional home and is recognised as such in the pastoral lease which they hold. Similarly Article 1 8 states:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

There is no way that the Aboriginal people of Australia can pursue their religious beliefs without the control and ownership of the land which holds the symbols of their religious beliefs. So in a very real sense the extension of the powers of the Commission into the States does at least provide an opportunity for the Commission to investigate and report to this Parliament on the questions which are the deepest and most important to the Aboriginal people of Australia and indeed to the people of Noonkanbah.

Mr Chairman, earlier I had obtained permission from the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) to incorporate in Hansard a couple of Press statements in relation to the Noonkanbah dispute. I therefore seek leave to have them incorporated.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

A STATEMENT BY THE PREMIER, SIR CHARLES COURT, ON NOONKANBAH

Communications to the area are poor but, from messages received I understand that representatives of Amax, the Mines Department and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Community Welfare went to Noonkanbah early this morning, ahead of the arrival of the first equipment, to talk to the local Aboriginal community about the proposed drill and camp site.

This was in accordance with the undertaking we gave.

Subsequently, I was advised that the first of the equipment had moved on to the agreed location and had commenced preparation of the site.

Later messages advised that, as a result of the meeting at Noonkanbah, Amax had been given approval to proceed.

To meet a community request, Amax has agreed to use No. 2 drilling site instead of their preferred site which had previously been referred to as No. 1 site.

It was also agreed that the camp site would be near the drill site. This was preferred by the community.

The community have agreed that contractors can upgrade the roads.

There has been an assurance from the community that there will be no further difficulties.

Naturally, I will have to wait until we get more detailed information, which no doubt will be available when somebody returns to Derby, where there are better communications. But it would appear that things have proceeded largely as we predicted.

Amax have advised us of the demand made on them by Mr Bob Hawke, calling for the cessation of all activities at Noonkanbah pending talks with Mr Peter Cook and threatening industrial action.

We have advised Amax that they should tell Mr Hawke that there is no industrial question involved. Sacred sites are being protected and we have no intention of allowing this to develop into land rights issue.

If Mr Cook wants to talk to anyone, he should talk to the Government as Amax are merely meeting their obligations under the permit they have from the Government. We would be only too pleased to talk to Mr Cook, if for no other reason than to be sure he understands the full facts.

STATEMENT BY MR JIMMY BIEUNDURRY, CHAIRMAN KIMBERLEY LAND COUNCIL, MEMBER WESTERN AUSTRALIA STATE LAND TRUST AND NAC REPRESENTATIVE FOR WEST KIMBERLEY

Charles Court has lied in saying that AMAX went on to Noonkembah with the Aboriginal community’s consent. The company forced its way on with police support and the connivance of the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs. A police force of 1 1 men with four cars and a ‘paddy wagon ‘ reinforced AMAX’s move to the Pea Hill sacred site. The company and Mines Department officials had then given the Community an ultimatum that they would drill on the Pea Hill site unless directed by the Community to an alternative drilling area which is also a sacred site.

Police stood by with the ‘paddy wagon’ to arrest Aboriginal people if they refused to consent. This is what Sir Charles Court calls negotiation and agreement.

The Noonkembah community has told me and the Regional Director of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Long, only the day before, that they were hoping for a cooling off period during which the Western Australia Museum would do a complete survey of all sites on the station. It is only two days ago since the Premier assured them that there would be no drilling without prior negotiation between the Company and the community, and no drilling whatsoever on sacred sites.

Again Sir Charles Court has openly lied to the Aboriginal people.

Aboriginal people have been threatened with an ultimatum or the alternative of arrest for protecting their religious beliefs.

The police, the Company and the Government had deliberately set out to catch the Community off guard while they awaited the Premier’s promised negotiations with AMAX and the arrival of Museum personnel.

I challenge the Regional Director of D.A.A., Mr Long, as Senator Chaney’s representative at Noonkembah yesterday, to provide his account of the events and to declare whether the community’s consent was given freely or under duress. There was no doubt that the most extreme duress was used.

I am concerned at the role played by Mr Long, who apparently had several days’ notice of the Company’s intention to move on to Noonkembah. Despite scheduled appointments in Perth Mr Long had chosen to remain for the past few days in Derby to participate in yesterday’s events. Despite this prior knowledge Mr Long failed to communicate anything of what was impending to the community or the Aboriginal Legal Service.

Consequently, the community had no warning and no recourse to legal advice.

I would also doubt the proposed Federal investigation of yesterday’s events, given that Senator Chaney’s most senior official in W.A., Mr Long, was- under the terms of the 1974 Commonwealth-State Agreement on Aboriginal Affairsalso under the direct control of the W.A. Minister for Police and Community Welfare.

Aboriginal people have lost their wishes and their religious beliefs have been violated by the combined action of AMAX, the police forces, the Mines Department and the Ministers for Community Welfare and Aboriginal Affairs in such circumstances.

Against such forces Aboriginal people have no hope of justice or means to gain and maintain dignity and respect.

Issued 19.3.80. (Enquiries Derby 91 1220)

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I want to draw attention to two distinctions between those statements. On the one hand the Premier of Western Australia on 18 March said:

To meet a community request,-

That is the Noonkanbah community-

Amax has agreed to use No. 2 drilling site instead of their preferred site which had previously been referred to as No. 1 site.

The Press statement from Jimmy Bieundurry, the chairman of the Kimberley Land Council, reads:

Police stood by with the ‘paddy wagon’ to arrest Aboriginal people if they refused to consent.

That is, if they refused to consent to the Amax suggestion. The statement continues:

This is what Sir Charles Court calls negotiation and agreement.

If that does not demonstrate a blatant need for investigation and report by a human rights commission I do not know what does. The worst aspect of all this is that the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney), who has demonstrated himself to be totally mealymouthed on this issue, is implicated in this dispute.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I intervene for only a couple of minutes to respond to the arguments raised by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins). May I say with the greatest of respect- and I am not unsympathetic to the motives of the Opposition in respect of the amendment before the Chair- that the Opposition ought to consider the full implications of clause 1 1 of the Bill. It highlights the philosophical differences between both sides of the chamber in that the Government has provided the framework for the States to request the Human Rights Commission to carry out functions within their State territories but at the State’s request. I accept the bona fides of the honourable member for Fremantle in believing that we as a Commonwealth Parliament ought to legislate to ensure that the powers of the Commission apply in respect of the activities within each State.

We on the Government side of the chamber support the federal system of Government and the compact which binds together six sovereign States in the Commonwealth of Australia. We do not believe in the imposition upon those six States of the will of Canberra. The argument is as simple and as short as that. So I say to the honourable member for Fremantle that there is nothing to prevent any State Government from going to the Commonwealth Government under proposed section 1 1 and making an arrangement with the responsible Minister for the performance on a joint basis of the functions laid down for the Commonwealth Human Rights Commission in respect of each State. I say to him that we on this side of the chamber are not prepared to impose the will of Canberra on the States. We do not believe in a centralist form of government. We support the federal system of government.

It is for that very reason that I invite the honourable member for Fremantle and honourable members opposite to give this legislation a fair trial to see which States come forward and say: ‘We would wish the Commonwealth Human Rights Commission to apply within our State territories’. I think the honourable member might be surprised, because my belief is that there will be a move within the States to bring individual States under the umbrella of the Commission.

In conclusion, I say that what is involved is a distinction between a centralist approach and an approach of co-operative federalism. I support the Government’s stand on this matter because I believe that if we co-operate and invite the States to join us we will get a much stronger and better Human Rights Commission than if we bludgeon them over the head with a stick from Canberra. Canberra is not the fount of all wisdom and centralist government is not the best government for the people of Australia.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

-I join issue with a couple of the points which have been made and which, I think, seriously misinterpret both the position of the Opposition and our attitude towards this amendment. It is not a question of there being a centralist direction from Canberra; it is a question of Australia, having signed and been a party to a covenant, carrying out its obligations under that covenant. I refer the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) to Article 50 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that it ‘shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions’. At the time that Australia freely signed the Covenant it did not say: ‘We must explain to all those other nation states that what we are signing binds Australia in respect of only the area of Canberra and other Federal territories’. At the time the Northern Territory would also have been included. That was never suggested or implied.

The signing of a covenant of this kind is a serious exercise. It is not something that is done lightly. No one in this chamber has been more vociferous than the honourable member for Denison in reminding other nation states of their obligations under the Covenant. But what do we do when those other nation states say: ‘When members of the national parliament of Australia go to the assemblies of the world to sign on behalf of Australia and when they call upon other nations to meet their international obligations, they do not really mean it. They really meanand what they have to be taken to mean- is that they are signing only for the area of Canberra and for a couple of small territories?Is that what the honourable member for Denison seriously wants the other nation states of the world to believe? That is the implication of the argument of the honourable gentleman. It is also the implication of the argument of the honourable member for Lilley ( Mr Kevin Cairns).

In international terms and in terms of the obligations that rest upon all nation states, when we sign these covenants we have to be taken to mean what we say. What would the honourable member for Lilley and the honourable member for Denison say if there was another civil rights claim within the Soviet Union and the Soviet leadership said: ‘When we signed this covenant, of course, we were talking only about the area of Moscow. This infringement took place in the Ukraine, which is a state, and we cannot do anything about it’? That argument would be rejected out of hand by the two honourable gentlemen opposite. It would be treated with contempt by the nations who are parties to this Covenant. Just as they are entitled to treat that argument with contempt when it is raised in respect of any other nation, they are entitled to treat the argument that has been advanced by the honourable gentlemen opposite with the contempt that it deserves. We signed these Covenants pursuant to the foreign affairs power of the Commonwealth to do so under the Constitution.

What we have heard tonight is an argument about States rights and the compact of federalism. What it comes down to is very simply that there are honourable members opposite who find it easier on their consciences to talk of human liberty in the noblest terms, and to wax eloquent about human rights anywhere in the world except in their home town. These gentlemen, like some of the provisions in this Bill, have transformed political hypocrisy into a new art form. The true sadness in all of this, after listening to the words that they uttered here today, is that they never seem to perceive the depth of their own deception.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 69

NOES: 33

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 5a.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-The next amendment that I wish to move is the Opposition’s amendment No. (2) which has been circulated. It provides for a new clause, Clause 5a, to be inserted into the Bill. The proposed new clause would read:

Approval is given to ratification by Australia of the Covenant.

Whilst the content of this amendment is not major, it is of great significance. In Australia, the Executive- that is, the Cabinet- can ratify international treaties such as the International Covenant without any parliamentary approval. However, the Opposition agrees with Senator Missen, Senator Publick and Senator Bonner that this Parliament should express through legislation its unequivocal commitment to ratification. Ratification, of course, will not necessarily do anything for human rights; only legislation can do that. It has already been made clear that the Government is not really going to affect the problems of human rights as they exist in the States and the Northern Territory. We have a firm commitment to enacting real human rights legislation. We see ratification as a statement of that commitment. We do not agree with Senator Durack ‘s argument that the Parliament has no place in the matter of ratification. We do not think that proposition is acceptable. Our amendment merely provides that the Parliament itself would be the instrument that would ratify the Covenant and would not just leave ratification to the Executive. I move:

  1. After clause 5, page 4, insert the following new clause: 5 a. Approval is given to ratification by Australia of the

Covenant. ‘.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)The question is that the new clause proposed to be inserted be so inserted. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. Is a division required?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– No division is required because committee meetings are taking place.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I think the noes have it.

Mr Baillieu:

– That is no excuse.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– If the honourable member wants to have a division we will call one. We will have a division. We cannot have that sort of nonsense.

Question put:

That the new clause proposed to be inserted (Mr Lionel Bowen’s amendment) be inserted.

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

AYES: 33

NOES: 70

Majority……. 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 6 to 8- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 9 (Functions of the Commission).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave- I move:

Clause 9 relates to an amendment that was moved in the Senate. The purpose of our amendment is to give the Commission the power to report to the Minister on the action that Australia needs to take. Honourable members will notice that clause 9 (1) (d) contains the words ‘when requested to do so by the Minister’. We are trying to make the point that because of the amendments accepted in the Senate clause 9 ( 1) (d) is now a very anomalous provision. The preceding paragraph (c) deals with the power of the Commission to recommend Commonwealth action on its own initiative in relation to human rights. Paragraph (e) deals with the power of the Commission to report on inconsistencies between various international instruments and the Covenant. Both of these paragraphs allow the Commission to report on its own initiative. However, paragraph (d) which was introduced in the Senate and which deals with reports concerning action needed to be taken by Australia- I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the word ‘Australia’ is used against the word Commonwealth ‘-to comply with the provisions of the Covenant only allows the exercise of that power by the Commission on the request from the Minister. So honourable members can see the inconsistency.

Paragraphs (c) and (e) specify that the Commission can exercise its power on its own initiative. However, the Commission can use the power contained in paragraph (d) only when requested to do so by the Minister. So our amendment provides that when it appears desirable to the Commission to do so the Commission should take the initiative. In our view there is no sense in what the Bill provides in this respect. The Commission should be able to report on its own initiative as to what Australia should do to comply with the Covenant.

We make the point that the very interesting expression introduced by the word ‘Australia’ really means the whole of Australia not just the Commonwealth. In the time of the Labor Government we always substituted the word Australia’ in lieu of the word ‘Commonwealth’. The only meaning that could be given to the word ‘Australia’ is Australia as a total concept, a continent and a complete entity. It does not mean the Government and the Parliament of the Commonwealth. It means the governments and the parliaments of the Commonwealth and of each of the States along with the Northern Territory. So there can be no argument about our first amendment. We wish to make it very clear that paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) should be completely consistent.

I turn now to our second amendment to clause 9. This amendment provides that where the Commission considers it is relevant and conducive to the proper performance of any of its functions under the preceding paragraphs- those are the ones to which I have referred- and to the protection and advancement of human rights in Australia to examine and to inquire, it can make a report to the Minister as to its results. We make this explanation. The amendment is very much a compromise proposal which the Government ought to accept. It allows the Commission to investigate and report upon the state of human rights and the violation of human rights in the States and the Territories and to report to the Federal Minister upon those issues. We do not believe it goes anywhere near far enough to overcome the denial of civil liberties in State jurisdictions which, of course, have been the subject of submissions in earlier amendments. However, if the Government is serious in its view that simple publication of denials of human rights through reports in this Parliament will have a significant political impact it cannot refuse to acccept this amendment.

The amendment involves no intrusion whatsoever on the rights of States which will be left with the ultimate decision about whether to change their laws, Acts and practices or otherwise. It is totally consistent with the overall philosophy, which we believe to be a very weak philosophynevertheless it is the Government’s philosophyunderlying this Bill. It will improve the legislation only marginally. If any action could prove the lack of bona fides of this Government and its subordination to the governments of Queensland and Western Australia, it would be refusal to accept this very innocuous amendment.

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

– Perhaps I might just shortly reply on behalf of the Government. As the Government has both in this place and in the other place refused to accept amendments which would extend the functions of the Human Rights Commission to include State laws and practices under State laws, it does not accept these amendments. The amendments are contrary to the Government’s federalism policy under which we have a clear recognition of the proper roles and responsibilities of the States in matters of human rights. This Government works on a basis of co-operative federalism with the States and Territories within the overall political framework of the federal compact. It would not be practicable within that system of federalism within Australia for the Commonwealth to legislate and therefore to impose upon the States in areas of their constitutional responsibility all the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Against that background, both within the provisions of this Bill and through the administrative and Executive practices of the Governmentfor example, through the ministerial meetings on human rights which will be held between Commonwealth and State Ministers- the Commonwealth will be embarking upon co-operation with the States and the Northern Territory in the field of human rights. Particularly through the ministerial meetings on human rights it will operate through a forum for intergovernmental discussions on human rights matters. Therefore, what we are doing is totally consistent with the federal compact of the political structure of Australia under the Australian Constitutution totally consistent with our philosophy of cooperative federalism, and totally consistent with our effort to see that human rights intrude into all parts of Commonwealth and State responsibilities.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 (Powers and duties of Commission).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I move:

Paragraph (f) states: the subject-matter of the complaint is not of sufficient concern to the complainant.

This clause deals with what the Human Rights Commission may do in its discretion if it wishes to hold an inquiry as a result of a complaint. I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that paragraph (a) of sub-clause (4) of clause 10 gives the Commission power not to deal with the complaint if it is frivolous, vexatious or is not made in good faith. The Opposition’s amendment seeks to leave out paragraph (f). It provides that the Commission need not act on a complaint if it is not of sufficient concern to the complainant. We make the point that a complaint should be dealt with on its merits without a restriction being imposed in this fashion. This matter came to notice in the second reading stage of the Bill. It was raised by the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) who mentioned the legal doctrine of locus standi and its relevance to the formal legal rules that are to apply. Not only are many aspects of these rules objectionable, but there is a particular reason for opposing them here. We do not want frivolous, vexatious or mala fide complaints going to the Commission. However, the Commission already has power under paragraph (a) to dismiss those matters which it deems to fall into that category.

Recently the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) prompted a debate on one aspect of human rights. What a great opportunity this amendment would give him to make a complaint to the Commission on all the matters that concern him. He would not be precluded from making a complaint on the ground that the matter about which he sought to complain was not of sufficient concern to him personally. If we have a genuine interest in the rights of people we should not have complaints dismissed on the basis that the person complaining is not deemed to have a sufficient concern. I think it is unnecessary that the Commission should have the power to decide not to hold an inquiry on that basis. Anybody who is concerned about a matter- and in the debate so far a number of honourable members have already expressed their concern about certain matters- should at least be given the chance to request that the Commission hold an inquiry into it. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I subscribe to the view that many of the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) are motivated by a genuine belief that the Bill would be improved by the acceptance of his amendments. However, there are some clauses in the Bill which serve to protect the interests of individuals in the community who may be reported for reasons which are not well motivated. I do not wish to rake over old coals, as I said some weeks ago at the second reading stage of the Bill, but I recall very clearly being a victim of a person whose motivations were highly political.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is unusual.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-That is right. My namesake, the honourable member for Hindmarsh, makes certain observations. I was motivated by goodwill when I drew the nation’s attention to the fact that members of a certain group of people in Brisbane were stealing pension cheques from letter boxes and cashing them. For identification purposes, I mentioned that group’s racial origin. I do not suppose it will do any harm, because I am not going to name the person concerned, but a Queensland Australian Labor Party senator was shooting off letters and telegrams to Mr Grassby demanding that I be brought to court, so to speak.

Mr Holding:

– You have already told us this story.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-It is a good story and it is worth repeating. I would have thought that the honourable member would have used his influence to have the amendment proposed by his Deputy Leader withdrawn. Obviously he has not heard the story so I have to repeat it. As I was saying, I was in all the strife in the world. The motivation of this Labor senator was political. I think clause 10 is a very good clause to protect the rights of the innocent, such as myself, when it reads: the subject-matter of the complaint is not of sufficient concern to the complainant.

The Human Rights Commission has the discretion to throw such a complaint out. I support the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner). Perhaps he may feel that I have so adequately handled this argument that there is no need for him to speak.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 ( In t er- go ve r n me n t a 1 arrangements).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave- I move:

The first amendment deals with an arrangement that can be made by the Minister with a State or the Northern Territory. According to this Bill, that arrangement would be in relation to ‘the performance by that State or Territory or by an authority of that State of Territory on behalf of the Commonwealth . . . relating to the promotion of the observance of human rights’. Let us make it very clear: On a literal interpretation, this would allow the Commission to be divested of powers, and for those powers to be given to State governments. In our view, it would be an appalling situation if powers were given to Queensland or Western Australia to administer human rights legislation which would relate only to the Commonwealth area in their State. As has been said before, one of the arguments with this whole legislation is whether human rights are more important than State rights. It is not even the Commission but the Government which will be responsible for any divesting of the powers of the Commission in favour of the States. The Commission does not even have to consent to the taking away of its powers. In other words, if the Government were prepared to put forward an amendment to the effect that such arrangements would need to be approved by the Commission and would be subject to disallowance, of course the Labor Party would have another look at the matter. But this part of the legislation, in its present form, is quite unsupportable. I think that everybody would agree with that. But we could not for one moment tolerate the fact that observance of human rights should be the subject of examination by the States I have mentioned and probably by most States in general.

The second amendment deals with an arrangement being made under this sub-clause, which arrangement shall be in writing. Such an arrangement can be varied or revoked and if so, shall be published in the Gazette. We are suggesting that any arrangement made in this fashion shall come into force and shall take effect as provided by regulations made for the purpose. The second part of this amendment provides that if any regulations providing for the bringing into force of an arrangement are disallowed then the arrangement shall cease. This amendment seeks to give to the Parliament a veto power over any arrangements that can be made under clause 1 1. All that is required at present is the gazettal of these arrangements. The Parliament is not placed in the position of overseeing any whittling away of the powers of the Commission.

A similar amendment was moved by Senator Missen. I thought that if I mentioned that fact, this amendment might attract the support of at least one or two Government members. In our opinion, the amendment does not go quite far enough but we are happy to put a bipartisan compromise, knowing full well that Senator Missen thought that this would be the way in which to deal with the matter. In view of what has happened already, of course we can well understand that the Government is pretty blinkered to any suggestions that we might make to improve this Bill, even if we are suggesting that Senator Missen ‘s amendment has some merits. Mr Deputy Chairman, the matters have been explained at length.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 14- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 15 (Evidence).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave- I move:

The amendments which I have just moved raise an issue which has been before the Parliament in many ways, and that is the question of freedom of information. During the last two years two significant developments have occurred. The first is the decision of the High Court in the Sankey v. Whitlam case and the second is the all-party report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the Freedom of Information Bill. Both the High Court and the Senate Committee clearly stated that the practice of conclusive government certificates denying access to government documents is not consistent with modern democratic practice. The Opposition opposes provisions such as this in any piece of legislation. In relation to human rights, the Commission, weak and deprived of power as it is, should have every relevant piece of evidence placed before it.

Here we see a provision whereby evidence can be denied to the Commission where the Attorney-General furnishes a certificate to the Commission certifying that the disclosure of the information concerning a specified matter or the disclosure of the contents of a document would be contrary to the public interest. But we are saying: Let the Commission be the judge of that matter and do not have this sort of administrative, executive-like ability to veto information. We are well aware, when we appoint people to be commissioners, that they have a sense of responsibility. They have a sense of what would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia or the disclosure of communications. The Government just cannot leave to what might well be a bureaucratic decision on the issue of a certificate the denial of evidence to the Commission. We make the point that if the Commission is as weak as we say it is, how much weaker will it be if it cannot even get evidence because the Attorney-General furnishes the certificate.

I think that what I have said adequately explains the thrust of what the Opposition is about. I think it is good for democracy that we have as much disclosure of information as is possible. It is very clear that information often held in secret is often misused at later times. It is important that, when there are matters relating to human rights in particular, the Commission so appointed is not denied evidence by a certificate which alleges that it will be a problem to furnish such information in terms of our defence, our security or for other reasons.

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

– Just in case it should be felt that the Government was seeking, for some ulterior or sinister purpose, to put the Commission in a position where it might keep secret to itself certain information, I feel I should place the background of this clause before the Committee. These sub-clauses are similar to provisions already existing in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act and the Ombudsman Act. The question arises, as the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) quite properly pointed out, against the background of the Freedom of Information Bill. That Bill is still under examination and will be the subject of a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. It is the Government’s intention, until that study is completed, to include these provisions in this Bill.

I should point out that under sub-clause (3), the Attorney-General is not required to issue a certificate. Sub-clause (3) allows the Chairman of the Commission to consider disclosure in some cases. So I think the Committee will appreciate that the Government considers it prudent, until final decisions are made on the terms of the Freedom of Information Bill, for these clauses to remain in this Bill as they presently exist in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act and the Ombudsman Act.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 16A.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

-I move:

The Committee will note that clause 16 provides for reports to contain recommendations. Proposed new clause 16A reads: 16a. ( 1 ) If a member of the Commission has given a certificate in writing in relation to an act or practice stating that-

  1. an inquiry under this Act has been held into the act or practice;
  2. the Commission has reported to the Minister that the act or practice is inconsistent with or contrary to a human right; and
  3. at the date of the certificate the matter that gave rise to the inquiry has not been settled,

We say in this amendment that any person aggrieved may institute proceedings under the legislation by way of a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for a number of remedies. We indicate in the proposed new clause what the remedies would be. There could be an injunction and an order directing the defendant to do a specified act. The question of damages could arise. There could have been damage to a person. The question of humiliation could arise. The new clause could provide for the enforcement of some other relief. The significant part in this matter is enforcement.

This is one of the most important amendments to the Bill. It is a matter of record in the Senate that three Liberal Senators- Missen, Puplick and Bonner- despite their arguments in the Senate in support of these types of amendments, succumbed to the Government’s pressure and did not vote for them. The provisions of the amendment are drawn from the Racial Discrimination Act which the Government, when in Opposition, supported in 1975. We do not believe it goes anywhere along the track to the effectiveness we would like, but it has the potential to transform ineffectual legislation into legislation which has some effectiveness. In other words, if a person is deemed to be aggrieved or feels aggrieved and a certificate has been furnished clearly indicating that an act or practice is inconsistent with or contrary to a human right, surely there has to be some method of enforcement. We cannot have this charade, this cosmetic piece of legislation which says one can go so far and must then stop and nobody can do anything about it. If this amendment is rejected and the legislation containing no enforcement provisions is passed the Parliament will have abdicated its responsibilities. I will quote what Senator Hamer said in the Senate. He is not of the Labor Party, as you know, Mr Deputy Chairman. He said:

I feel the amendment is central to effective implementation of a Human Rights Bill.

If we are to ratify the international Covenant, which is the apparent intention of the Government, we cannot do anything less than adopt this amendment because anything less would not justify such ratification. We do not pretend or put forward that the amendment is sufficient to bring about the fullest protection, but at least it allows a person to take legal action on the basis that that person has suffered in one fashion or another because that person’s human right has been infringed and there is evidence to that effect. Late as. it is and disappointing as it has been to hear the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) say that he is unable to agree to any reasonable argument, on this occasion the provision of enforceability where a certificate is available at least should be acceptable to the Government.

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

– In view of the fact that the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), places such weight on this amendment I should comment upon it. In doing so I do not intend to detract from the strength of the Government’s argument against it. The burden of that argument was carried by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) in the Senate during the lengthy debate on the Bill in that place. I simply make the point that the amendment is inappropriate in a measure designed to establish an inquiring, conciliating, educating and reporting body. As the honourable member pointed out, this provision is drawn from the Racial Discrimination Act. One can well understand it appearing in the Racial Discrimination Act which is legislation of a different kind. Hence it is appropriate that rights created under that Act be supported by the power of an individual to commence litigation in support of that right.

Another point can be made to show the point of view adopted by the Government; that is, that this amendment is unprecedented and if it were allowed in legislation of this kind- as I have said, it is a measure designed to establish an inquiring, conciliating, educating and reporting body- it could well be a matter of creating through the back door a Bill of Rights for the Commonwealth with powers extending throughout Australia. There is a host of differences of opinion as to whether Australia, having a common law background supported by certain rights created under the Constitution, should have a Bill of Rights. The Government does not believe that citizens of Australia would be better served by a Bill of Rights than they are presently served by the conjunction of common law rights and statutory rights of the Commonwealth, States and the Territories.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 17 to 34- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 35 (Non-disclosure of private information).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave- I move:

Clause 35 reads:

  1. ) A person who is, or has at any time been, a member of the Commission or a member of the staff referred to in section 27 or is, or has at any time been, authorized to perform or exercise any function or power of the Commission or any function or power on behalf of the Commission shall not be required-

    1. to divulge or communicate to a court . . .

Evidence could be obtained, and it could be reasonable evidence, but simply because a person has been a member of the Human Rights Commission, a court of this land can be prevented from getting that evidence. I do not think that is at all right. In other words, if a person were subpoenaed who had been a member of the Commission and who had evidence which was of importance to the court, why should there be this embargo, veto or suggestion that even though the evidence is available the witness cannot give it because that particular person had been a member of the Commission or a member of the staff of the Commission referred to in clause 27. This could well mean that where evidence exists we will not be able to get it. So we would have a Bill that would not allow human rights to be enforced. Under this particular cause it could take away the common law right of complainants. The evidence could be there in somebody’s knowledge and somebody’s control, yet it could not be got out of the witness because it was evidence gathered in the course of working for the Commission. If the Commission, in the course of its investigations, obtains evidence which a complainant might wish to place before a court, why should the complainant not be entitled to put the evidence before the court? This clause prevents it. Again I shall quote Senator Missen. This must be of some doubtful value now because all the previous quotations have not swayed the Minister. He said that it was ‘a highly unwise clause ‘.

Mr Viner:

-That’s right.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The Minister says that that is right. He is not at all swayed by whatever Senator Missen says. A complainant in a court could say: ‘I can get evidence from a person I can subpoena’. This would be a rare occasion. A witness in the box could say: ‘I want to give the evidence, but an objection will be made because under the Human Rights Commission Bill, even though the evidence existsthat means the truth of the matter exists- I cannot give the information to the court’. I repeat, the Bill is weak enough as it is, but to deny even the admissibility of evidence on a common law normality is from the point of view of obtaining evidence, going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Accordingly, we again urge the Government to reconsider its position. If it is not prepared to do so now we urge that at least it give consideration to the matter when the measure is returned, as it must be, to the Senate.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave- adopted.

Third Reading

Leave not granted.

Mr VINER (Stirling-Leader of the HousesPursuant to contingency motion, of which notice has been given, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-The name of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie shall be recorded as being opposed to the motion.

Motion (by Mr Viner) agreed to:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

page 955

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition opposes this legislation. It is not necessary to go into any detail concerning it at this stage. A cognate debate took place. The main emphasis was on the question of the Human Rights Commission and its ability to operate within State laws and ensure enforceability. The significant point about this Bill is that virtually it does away with the office of the Commissioner for Community Relations, who was appointed under a Labor administration. Although he may remain, it appears that he would be completely subservient to the Commission. That is a poor indictment, in particular, of the Government’s interest in matters relating to migrants and the great job that Mr Grassby has been able to do. It does appear that because Mr Grassby happens to be a Labor appointee his position is to suffer a demise.

Mr Hodges:

– Oh, that’s not right.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-The honourable member can shake his head. I will tell him how right it is. I have spoken to other Ministers, not the Leader of the House (Mr Viner), who is sitting at the table. They make it clear that Mr Grassby is not acceptable to the establishment, to the Government. Accordingly, it is with regret that we have to say that the Government will win this argument. However, it will not win on the merits. The Opposition opposes this legislation.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Dr H. A. Jenkins)

AYES: 70

NOES: 31

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so 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 SCHOLES:
Corio

– I intend to take only one minute of the time of the House. It is an indictment of this House and the Government that legislation, which takes away from a lot of small people in this community, especially migrants, will remove the Commissioner for Community Relations from their access and remove what they see as their spokesman from the Commonwealth. I know that this is embarrassing to the Government and it is embarrassing to whichever party is in power, but it is and was an office which served a very useful purpose for people who had complaints and had nowhere to go with them. Those people get no service from Liberal members when they go to them and now they will get no service from any other place.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be just as brief as the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes). I want to make the observation that what the honourable member for Corio has said is totally incorrect. The subject of the -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:

Order! Would honourable members cease standing in the aisles and cease talking.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, your reference to the aisle frightens me. The matter of racial relations and discrimination will be an integral part of the new Human Rights Commission. Prior to my resuming my seat I make an observation which I believe to be true. We have heard honourable members on the other side of the House say that this is a concocted attempt to rid the country of Mr Grassby. Most people would reject that supposition, but it is a truism that Mr Grassby, who was placed in this most sensitive area of racial relations, unfortunately had this continuing propensity to inject politics into his position.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I ask honourable members opposite to wait. I have listened to them all night. Every time a member opposite died or retired Mr Grassby was sniffing around wanting to nominate for the seat. There is a long history of his continuing political activities. I plead with Mr Grassby to unyoke himself from his continuing interests in politics and take racial relations out of the political forum. More than any other man in this country, Mr Grassby has injected political overtones into this most sensitive area.

If members read what I had to say in the debate on the second reading of the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill they will notice that I said that I would like to see Mr Grassby as a commissioner of the new Human Rights Commission. I really believe that he should be as he has something to offer. If Mr Grassby wishes to continue in that position he should depoliticise his endeavours because everywhere he goes he is the Labor candidate. That creates suspicion in the minds of people from one side of the country to the other. If there is any controversy surrounding the man he has brought it upon himself. I said that I was going to speak for only a moment and that is all I have done. I wanted to get that message across to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner). I hope he reads the report of this debate.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I enter this debate simply to deal with the spurious allegations just made by the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron). There is no leader of any ethnic community in Australia who would not pay tribute to the job that Mr Grassby has done as Commissioner for Community Relations. There is no ethnic community in Australia which would make the accusation that Mr Grassby, in endeavouring to serve ethnic harmony in this community, ever politicised his office. What we have is a typical Liberal Party smear. What was the evidence that was adduced by the honourable member opposite? Al Grassby has never nominated since he has been Commissioner for Community Relations. The mere fact that honourable members might read an allegation in a newspaper about someone in public life does not make that allegation true.

Mr Viner:

– Oh, don ‘t you believe newspapers?

Mr HOLDING:

– I have read that the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) was involved in ballot rigging with a former Minister of this Government. I did not accept that as the truth because I read it in a newspaper. I have read that the honourable member for Fadden has a propensity for all sorts of cakes and people leaping out of them, but I do not necessarily believe that because I read it in a newspaper. I do not believe those sorts of things. I simply say that Al Grassby has served the ethnic communities well. The real test, the real judge of that, is not what his former political opponents might say on the basis of what they might read in a newspaper. The real test of that is the view of the ethnic communities themselves. There is not one ethnic community in Australia that would not give Al Grassby full measure for the job that he has done in servicing faithfully and well ethnic communities in endeavouring to reduce racial discrimination in this country.

I had not intended to enter this stage of the debate but I was not prepared to sit back and hear someone who has served ethnic communities as well and as faithfully as Al Grassby has being smeared and maligned in the manner we have just witnessed in this House. He is not here and able to defend himself against those sorts of allegations. I thought it was proper and just that someone should pay tribute to his work. I have had him servicing ethnic communities in my electorate as other honourable members have.

He has always done his best. I am not prepared to let him be smeared and maligned by the honourable gentleman opposite. I would suggest that that honourable gentleman not simply base his information on newspaper articles. If I were to judge him on the basis of some of the newspaper articles that I have read about him I would not want to associate with him.

Mr YATES:
Holt

– It is an imposition and a very rude -

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier ) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Dr Jenkins)

AYES: 67

NOES: 33

Majority……. 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 958

DISTILLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 February, on motion by Mr Garland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Excise Amendment Bill 1980, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980 and the Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax (Repeal) Bill 1979 as they are related measures. Separate question will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The first three of these Bills- the Distillation Amendment Bill, the Excise Amendment Bill and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2)- relate to the production and use of ethanol as a fuel for internal combustion engines. The Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax (Repeal) Bill will remove the 2.125c a litre tax on liquefied petroleum gas used in automobiles. The measures contained in all these Bills are designed to encourage the use of alternative liquid fuels and are therefore welcomed by the Opposition as we believe there should be greater diversification in Australia’s liquid fuel sources. These measures, although minor, are particularly welcomed because of the reluctance shown by the Government in the past to encourage the development of synthetic fuels. Although these policies represent a step in the right direction, a great deal more could and should be done by way of energy research, development and demonstration if synthetic fuels are to make a significant contribution to Australia ‘s energy needs.

There is no single panacea to our impending problem of a shortage of domestic liquid fuels, but ethanol as a petrol extender, LPG as a substitute fuel, as well as methanol, coal liquefaction, shale oil and others can each contribute. The ultimate choice among competing fuels should be based largely on overall costs, but insufficient information about the economics of these alternatives is available at the moment. Therefore it is difficult to assess their potential impact. For this reason, the level of research needs to be increased. Although production of these fuels on a large scale may not be essential as yet, we should be in a position to commence production if the necessity arises. The record of the government, though, has been very poor in this area. A survey by the Department of National Development shows that in 1977, the Government spent $2.30 per head of population on energy research and development compared with more than $9 a head spent in the United States and West Germany and about $5 in Canada.

Even the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council, which was established to foster and support additional research, has been given a very inadequate level of funding. In 1978-79 total expenditure by NERDDC was only $4m and in 1979-80 the budgetted figure is $9.1m. This years’ expenditure will represent only 0.3 per cent of total oil revenue flowing to the Government. That is very low indeed. Revenue from crude oil will be at least $2,400m and excise on refined products will reap the Government $956m, but expenditure on energy research will be only $9. 1 m. This is far too low. Expenditure on ethanol research is even less impressive. In 1978-79, NERDDC allocated funds for ethanol research totalling $ 1 . 55m to be spent over three years. If this Government were really concerned about the development of alternative liquid fuels, this level of expenditure would be increased.

Let me look specifically at the measures contained in these Bills now before the House. They are aimed at encouraging small scale farm production of ethanol. The main measure is to introduce a new class of distilling licence to be known as an ‘experimenters’ licence which will authorise the distillation of spirits from any material to enable research into the production of ethanol for use as a fuel. This should enable a more realistic assessment of the technical, environmental and administrative problems involved in small scale ethanol production and may also allow for a better assessment of production costs. The other major change contained in this legislation is to remove the excise on ethanol. Currently it attracts a duty of $19.25 per litre, which itself makes the cost of ethanol prohibitive as a fuel extender.

Although this Government’s policies on alternative fuels leave a lot to be desired, these measures are at least moving in the right direction. Ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, has the advantage that it can be produced from a range of plantsthe most promising in Australia being sugar cane, sugar beet, cassava and wheat. It can be used directly as a fuel in turbines or mixed with petrol in standard internal combustion engines, and has the added advantage of being less polluting than motor spirit. The use of ethanol in Australia has so far been negligible although blends of up to 15 per cent have been used in some areas of Queensland in the past.

The one country that has used ethanol on a large scale is Brazil. A compulsory alcohol addition to gasolene to a level of 5 per cent was legislated for in 1931. The major motivation at the time was to stabilise the sugar industry. Since then the alcohol content has varied. At present the average blend is about 9 per cent ethanol. Brazil is also the only country producing engines for straight ethanol use. About 600 cars are running on an experimental basis at the moment. Brazil of course is placed quite differently from other countries. It is endowed with considerable amounts of spare fertile land and a major factor in the development of ethanol has been the chronic overproduction of sugar. The gasahol program in the United States has also been facilitated by overproduction problems in the maize industry, as well as subsidisation by the Government.

The major barrier to ethanol usage in Australia is its high cost of production. There is considerable uncertainty about the costs involved and recent studies have come up with a wide range of estimates. One study by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation put the cost range in December 1978 at between 38c and 49c a litre for ethanol produced from cassava, 44c from sugar cane and 48c from wheat. These figures compare with an average cost at that time of 12c for motor spirit ex-refinery. This study concluded: . . there are no economic reasons for turning to the renewable resource based alcohol fuels at present.

However, other studies have shown less pessimistic results. The Sydney University Research Centre believes that ethanol could be produced at a cost of between 22c and 28c a litre. This lower cost estimate is reached because of the development of a different technology which reduces conversion process costs.

One of the factors contributing to poor economics is the low energy efficiency of ethanol production. The final liquid fuel product represents only 30 per cent to 40 per cent of total energy inputs compared with about 90 per cent for refined fuels from crude oil. A considerable amount of waste is also produced. Nine to 12 litres of waste have to be disposed of for every one litre of ethanol produced. Even though the marginal economics at this stage dictate against large scale ethanol production, they do indicate that more research work is necessary. Small scale research is one means of doing this. Alcohol blends still have economic problems but it is hoped that with further development the technology will become more efficient and thus competitive with conventional fuels.

The other Bill now before the House relates to the removal of the 2.125c a litre excise on LPG for automotive use. This decision, announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his energy speech in June last year, is supported by the Opposition. LPG could ultimately satisfy 10 per cent to 15 per cent of Australia’s liquid fuel requirements, although the Government’s current policies are acting against the full utilisation of this fuel. Because of the policy of pricing domestically consumed LPG at the ruling export price, the price has increased from $88 a tonne in January last year to $252 a tonne at present. These price increases have had a detrimental effect on the use of LPG both in motor vehicles and as a general fuel. As an automotive fuel, LPG still remains competitive with motor spirit, despite the recent price increases. The price differential is currently about 14c a litre, which means that conversion costs are recouped in about 34,000 kilometres. However, demand for car conversions has dropped off considerably because fleet owners are concerned about the likelihood of further large price increases removing this price differential. They are also worried about safety standards.

This Government’s policies on LPG are, to put it mildly, in chaos. It has policies aimed at encouraging the use of LPG but at the same time it has a pricing policy which discourages its use. The most significant impact of this policy has been on household users. LPG is now considerably more expensive than electricity, but the cost of conversion to electricity for an average house is about $ 1 ,500. Natural gas reticulation in some towns will provide relief in the next few years, but for the remainder the choice is between high LPG prices and converting to electricity at considerable expense. Because of this, the Government found itself in a position of having to introduce a subsidy of $80 a tonne for household users. But this subsidy is still not operational. Also, two days after the subsidy was announced the price of LPG was increased by $ 105 a tonne which more than offset any benefit likely to arise from the subsidy. An additional problem associated with nigh LPG prices for households is that many gas utilities are in severe financial difficulties and are threatening to close. The Government’s policies on LPG have only resulted in rapidly increasing prices and in considerable confusion. If LPG is to make a significant contribution to Australia’s liquid fuel supplies, the Government must act to sort out this mess.

Mr EWEN CAMERON:
INDI, VICTORIA · LP

– I direct my remarks to the Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax (Repeal) Bill. Firstly, I congratulate the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland), the former Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and the Government on making this important move. Currently, transport uses 57 per cent of all oil consumed in Australia. This figure is expected to remain fairly constant over the next 10 years. Products derived from oil are the only form of efficient portable energy available for the time being. Liquefied petroleum gas appears to be the only visible alternative to oil presently available to meet our short term needs. Although LPG cannot be envisaged as a major alternative fuel for motor vehicles, the National Energy Advisory Committee in its report of July 1979 predicts that by 1990 the indigenous supply of LPG should be sufficient for about 5 per cent of the national motor spirit market or about 8 per cent of the spirit market in Melbourne and Sydney. It is within the major cities, particularly Melbourne and Sydney, that LPG can be seen as an alternative fuel. Rural areas in Victoria are also particularly suited for the use of LPG as an automotive fuel.

On a national basis, 67 per cent of motor vehicles are used in urban areas and account for 74 per cent of the total motor spirit consumed. Taxis, buses, fleet vehicles and transports are just a few of the areas where LPG can reduce transportation costs as well as the level of exhaust emission fumes. The Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria, a government statutory authority, has recognised the need for conservation of our liquid fuels by establishing the LP Auto-gas Division. This Division has been created to promote the use of LPG as a viable alternative to petrol. The LP Autogas Division provides a complete service to the motorist who is interested in converting his car or truck to LPG. There is a display showroom featuring imported and locallyproduced equipment, a workshop manned by specially trained mechanics and a fleet of demonstration vehicles.

In July 1979 the Gas and Fuel Corporation, as part of its LPG promotion, conducted a four-day car economy trial around Victoria. The aim of the trial was to promote and to encourage the motoring public to consider LPG as a reliable, economical and low-pollution alternative fuel. Based on metropolitan fuel prices at that time the results of the trial indicated that cars running on LPG saved an average of 45 per cent on fuel costs. Further tests on the LPG-converted vehicles established a number of other benefits for the motorist such as longer engine life, longer spark plug life, fewer oil changes, clean exhaust emissions, smoother driving power through higher octane rating and minimisation of fuel losses by spillage.

In September of last year, the Federal Government Members Transport Committee, led by its very active chairman, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), also conducted a road trial over three days. The route was from Sydney to Canberra, then returning to Sydney. The trial produced significant information that had not previously been available on exhaust emissions for LPG and diesel fuelled vehicles compared with petrol driven cars. The tests, which were conducted by officers of the New South Wales Department of Motor Transport, showed that the amount of carbon monoxide emitted from the petrol fuelled car was 21.84 grams per kilometre compared with 1.12 grams per kilometre for the LPG powered car and 0.45 grams per kilometre for the diesel engine car. The introduction of stage 3 of the Australian Design Rule 270 on emission controls would require carbon monoxide emissions to be reduced to a maximum of 18.6 grams per kilometre. LPG emissions are far below this level and far below the emissions from petrol fuelled motor vehicles envisaged in the near future.

In recent months there has been considerable speculation about the price differential between automotive LPG and petrol. Many refer to this matter on a percentage basis. However, I look at it in terms of a cash difference- that is, the actual cash margin between the prices of automotive LPG and super grade petrol. Based on Melbourne prices we can see what in actual fact has occurred. In January 1979, the price of super grade petrol was 20.7c per litre compared with 1 1.3c for LPG, a price differential of 9.4c. But at the end of January this year the price of super grade petrol was 33.1c per litre and the price of LPG was 18.5c per litre, a differential in price of 14.6c favouring LPG. I repeat that the price of automotive LPG was 9.4c per litre cheaper than the price of super grade petrol in January last year, but is currently 14.6c per litre cheaper. Whilst I realise that these margins vary according to the relevant freight rate on each fuel in different parts of Australia, I emphasise the economic viability of LPG to many motorists in Australia who are above average users of their vehicles.

The Government is committed to an energy conservation program which is designed to encourage a shift in energy use away from oil to alternative fuels. In June of last year the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) announced a number of initiatives to encourage the wider use of LPG, including the removal of the 2.15c per litre liquefied gas road vehicle tax. This Bill will repeal that tax and is a vitally important part of the program. I am acutely aware of the effect that recent massive price rises have had on the interest of motorists to convert their cars to LPG. The industry has virtually come to a standstill in spite of the obvious economic advantages I have already explained. I have joined with my colleagues in pressing the Government in the strongest terms to look at the future of automotive LPG pricing with the aim of restoring the conversion industry to its former vigour. I must say that delays in implementing safety regulations in the States have had a most detrimental effect on vehicle conversions. However, the industry is poised to resume as soon as these various matters have been resolved. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I join the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) in discussing cognately these four Bills before the House. I would like especially to talk briefly about the Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax (Repeal) Bill 1979 because I think that it and the allied subject matter shown an incredible amount of inconsistency and confusion on the part of the Government. As the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron), who preceded me in this debate, has indicated, there is a great deal of concern about the effect of the Government’s policy. The purpose of the Liquefied Gas (Road Vehicle Use) Tax (Repeal) Bill is to remove the tax on liquefied gas for road vehicle use.

I think I should say as a matter of historical interest that the tax was first proposed, and sensibly proposed, in the Budget Speech of the then Treasurer in 1974-75. The view was taken, quite appropriately that users of liquefied gas propelled vehicles made no contribution to government revenue while users of vehicles powered by other fuels significantly contributed to the maintenance of roads. The rate of tax at that time was set at 2c per litre. I understand that that was 40 per cent of the rate of excise duty on petrol at that time. It was set so as not to erode revenue and not to inhibit the expansion of the use of gas. It was also determined that for five years increases in the tax would be limited to 50 per cent of the increases that occured in the petrol excise.

In August 1 977 the tax was increased to 2.125c a litre. This increase was in line with the increase that occured in the petrol excise. As part of an energy conservation program and with the intention of shifting energy use from oil, the tax is to be removed. I suppose this action would represent a consensus from both sides of the House. There is obviously a feeling that use of liquified petroleum gas should be encouraged and if the imposition of an excise is a deterrent to that use, then it is a reasonable proposition that that excise should be removed. In fact, I understand that although we are discussing this Bill on 19 March the abolition of the tax is to be effective from 28 June 1979. 1 think that is provided for in clause 2 of the Bill. I am not quite sure how that can be done, but I understand that is the situation. I may be corrected by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) if I am wrong in that regard.

The encouragement of the use of LPG as a conservation measure seems to me to be retarded. This Government has contrived to hike up the price of LPG because of its world parity pricing policies. LPG happens to be the casualty in this respect. LPG has gone to world parity pricing and oil prices have not yet gone to world parity. There is obviously some inconsistency in the Government’s attitude in this regard. I understand that the oil industry does not complain at all about the price differential between petrol and LPG which averages 13c a litre. There is no move to cream off the oil company profits in any way by an excise tax or any other kind of penalty. Of course, the oil companies are wallowing in a very lucrative harvest as a result of the world pricing policy. Whilst the oil companies are happy enough, the consumers are unhappy. The large fleet owners around the countryside are extremely displeased. They want to see some changes about world parity pricing. They have to hone in on this world pricing factor. I think many of them feel that the Government has gone too far in its enthusiasm in bringing LPG to world parity pricing.

So far as parity pricing of oil is concerned, there has been a recent switch in government policy. I think there is a reflection of the attitude of the electorate in that respect. I think the Government is now going to review the policy every six months, or at least after every election. It is certainly not anxious to put up the price of petrol as a result of world parity policies. After all, the cost of petrol has risen from 16.5c a litre to 35c a litre since the Fraser Government took office in 1975.

Mr Yates:

– Thirty-four cents.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Am I wrong?

Mr Yates:

– Thirty-four cents.

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I was referring to the increase since December 1975. 1 stand corrected. This is an increase of over 120 per cent in four years. But the great price leap in LPG was caused by the fact that LPG moved to full parity pricing on 20 January. The price rose by $105 a tonne. As I said, parity pricing for oil has yet to be achieved. LPG has already achieved it. That is the real distinction. That is the very essence of the argument that is taking place about this matter. This is what the honourable member for Indi was referring to. The incentive to operate on LPG is decreasing because the price differential is decreasing. I think some fun and games are going on in relation to this matter. I think the Government is invoking a thimble and pea act.

Let me put the matter to the House in this way: On 19 January the Government introduced an $80 a tonne domestic subsidy on propane gas. On 20 January, the next day, the Government accepted a Prices Justification Tribunal recommendation to raise the price of propane by $ 105 a tonne to $252 a tonne. In other words the benefits accruing from the subsidy were neutralised. The price of LPG soared from $88 a tonne in January 1979 to $252 a tonne for propane and $290 a tonne for butane.

Mr Wallis:

– What were those figures?

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The new figures are $252 a tonne for propane and $290 a tonne for butane. The honourable member who asked me that question is obviously interested in this matter because it affects the rural consumer. I understand there is an enormous amount of controversy in the ranks of the Government and that there have been delegations of back bench members to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and other Ministers complaining about this matter. The rural people are up in arms about the effect of these policies. Domestic use for country users is fast going out of fashion. Country people are the victims of this Government’s policy. It seems to me that natural gas and electricity are priced more competitively. It is an absurd situation if the whole purpose of this policy is supposed to have regard to the need to reduce oil prices and to use gases, the products of petrol, if on the other hand because of the circumstances to which I have referred the prices are becoming uncompetitive.

The honourable member for Indi made some reference to safety factors. I just want to mention this matter very briefly. I feel the Government has been quite inept and inadequate in its handling of safety factors. I suppose one could say that there is a constitutional prerogative on the part of the States in relation to this matter, but we obviously cannot have different standards in the six States and the Territories of Australia. There has to be a far more significant lead on the part of the national Government to popularise the use of LPG in vehicles and to look at the safety issues. I see a number of newspaper headings which have just been made available to me and which refer to the high level of danger that apparently still prevails in respect of the use of LPG vehicles. I see in the Melbourne Herald on 25 October 1979 an article headed ‘40 flaws in LPG rules ‘. The article stated:

The Society of Automotive Engineers has found more than 40 flaws in the regulations governing installation of liquid petroleum gas in vehicles.

The Society has sent a report to the Australian Standards Association, urging changes to the regulations.

Some people contend that we take unnecessary risks when we arrive at a service station and seek to fill a vehicle from a container, that we should be able to buy a container; just as truck drivers go out and buy oxygen and acetylene in containers, we should be able to do that and place the containers which are filled with gas in our vehicles. Whether that is controversial- I see one member shaking his head as though he does not accept it as a fair proposition- the fact is that many other proposals have been put forward by the Society of Automotive Engineers which seem to be beyond argument. Insufficient work has been done in that regard.

I would like to say more, but my time is limited. I believe that the Government is inadequate in this matter. The victims are the people who would like to get a cost advantage by using LPG in their private vehicles. More especially, the victims are people in rural electorates who are being deprived of the cost advantages.

Debate interrupted.

page 963

ADJOURNMENT

Disability Pension for War Veteran- Superannuation- High Court Building- Member for Prospect- Defence Force Reserve Payments: Taxation- Funding of Hostel for the Handicapped

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! It being 10.30 p.m. I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-As most honourable members probably know, I am no longer the shadow Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs. However, tonight I want to raise an issue which I promised a veteran I would raise. I want to deal with a matter that concerns Mr James Hammond of 16 Palmerston Street, Currajong, North Queensland, who was referred to me by Mr Ted Lindsay, who is the Australian Labor Party candidate for the Federal seat of Herbert, which includes the town of Currajong. During service in France in July 1916 Mr Hammond received a bullet wound in the abdomen and side and was taken prisoner by the Germans. As a prisoner of war he endured three difficult operations and was in hospital for five or six months. Following great discomfort and uncertainty he was finally found unfit by a German medical board and was subsequently exchanged for a German POW and repatriated to Switzerland for the rest of the war.

First he received a disability pension of approximately 10 shillings a week, as he remembers it, for some years after the war. Then, because he was working, he did not bother about the pension. For the last 15 years or so he has received a 70 per cent disability pension, which on present figures amounts to just under $30 a week. In 1979 his condition worsened. Let us remember that he is now 84 years of age. In 1 979 following an increase in the severity of existing symptoms as well as in the number of symptoms, Mr Hammond who was then aged 83, applied for an increase in the rate of disability pension. He was at that time suffering from increased pain in the region of the abdominal wound. I might point out that his abdominal wound was severe. One part of his iliac crest was shot away and his intestines were damaged and exposed when he was originally injured. Following his application for an increase he was summarily informed that his pension had not been increased from 70 per cent but had in fact been reduced to the 30 per cent rate of only $ 12.56 a week because allegedly he had been over-assessed previously.

I must say that this Government has behaved in an extremely callous way. I think even honourable members opposite would agree that this person who is aged 84 has not received very much recompense from this country after having been severely injured in the First World War. Mr Hammond applied on the advice of his medical practitioner for an increase in his disability pension because the disability was getting worse. But what did the Government do? It reduced his pension from 70 per cent to 30 per cent. How much will the Government save by reducing its assessment of his level of disability? It just strikes me that this is possibly over-zealousness on the part of some officers in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. I know that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann) was not able to come into the House tonight. I told him that I would be speaking on this matter and he apologised for not being able to be here. I hope that as a result of my raising this matter in the House people will have another look at it. I hope that they will look at the report from the Department which reduced this already miserly pension of just over $29 a week to below $ 1 3 a week.

I hope not only that will Mr Hammond be helped but also that the Minister will instruct his Department possibly not to be too precise in the application of very stringent rules. We should remember that we are dealing with a person who is 84 years of age, who was very severely injured originally, but who did not take advantage of his pension rights to which he has been entitled for the last 60 years until he became very old. But when his condition worsened and he applied for an increase he received a letter from the Department informing him that his assessed rate of disability has been decreased. I appeal to the Government to reverse this decision and to realise that the treatment he has received can only be described as callous in the extreme.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-In 1963 Mr Don Price of 85 St Aubin ‘s Street, Scone, in the Paterson electorate, joined the firm of Campbells Garages Pty Ltd, Scone, and on 12 December of that year entered into a superannuation policy which was taken out for him by the firm with the AMP Society under a trusteeship deed. Mr Price paid into this fund for 9 years and 2 months, and in February 1978 the garage business was sold by Campbells to Mr N. Sacknow of Upper Hunter Motors Pty Ltd, Bridge Street, Muswellbrook, who took over the policy in the name of Campbells Garages Pty Ltd. Mr Don

Price was manager of Campbells Garages all this time.

On 26 April 1979 Mr Sacknow dismissed Mr Price from the services of the garage business in Scone. Mr Price then contacted the local representative for the AMP Society, who informed him that the surrender value of the policy at that time was $5,288, and Mr Price then made application to the AMP Society for this amount to be paid to him in April 1979. By the middle of July, not having received payment, he again contacted the AMP representative through his Scone solicitor, and was informed that Mr Sacknow had decided to pay Mr Price the amount he had paid into the policy. Mr Price’s Scone solicitor then received a letter from the AMP Society stating that the full amount of the policy was $5,288 and had been paid by cheque to Mr Sacknow on approximately 4 July 1 979.

Mr Price then phoned the officer in charge of the superannuation department of the AMP Society in Sydney, who stated that he had never heard of an employee who had not received the full amount of a superannuation policy. On contacting Mr Sacknow by phone Mr Price was informed that he was only going to pay him the amount he, Mr Price, had paid into the Society and that had he stayed with the company until retirement he would have received the full amount. Mr Price did not resign from the company; he was dismissed by Mr Sacknow. Late in 1 979 Mr Price received a cheque from Mr Sacknow for the amount he had paid into the policy, the balance being apparently a complete windfall for Mr Sacknow. On taking the matter further with the Consumer Affairs Bureau and legal advice it appears that under clause 9 of the trustee deed the following paragraphs are stated on transfers to other plans:

  1. The rights of the member or his dependants to receive the benefits arising from the amount transferred are fully secured, and
  2. Benefits may not be paid from that plan or fund to or in respect of the member except when he retired or in the circumstances of his incapacity for work attributable to illness or accident or on his death or in such other circumstances as in the opinion of the Trustees are approved for the purposes of Section 23f of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1 936-73 or any amendment or re-enactment of that Section.

There is another clause in the agreement which relates to the procedure on ceasing to be in the employer’s service. Section F states:

If for any other reason other than his death or in the circumstances referred to the member ceases to be in the service of the employer prior to his normal retirement date, the Trustee shall surrender the policy on his life and subject to the other provisions of this Deed pay to the member that proportion of the surrender value of the policy and of any other amount held by the Trustee in respect of the member which the contributions made by the member to the plan bear to the total contributions to the plan by and in respect of the member provided however that the Trustees may in their discretion pay to the member the whole or any part of the balance of the said surrender value or amount provided further that the Trustees shall at the request of the member transfer the policy to him on his paying to the Trustees a sum being the difference, if any, between the surrender value of the policy and the part thereof which would otherwise have been paid to the member, or without any such payment. Any balance of the surrender value of the policy and of any other amount held by the Trustees in respect of the member which in accordance with this rule is not paid to the member and any sum paid by the member to the Trustees as aforesaid shall be transferred to the reserve account.

What legal jargon that clause is. These clauses appear to protect the new owner and trustee of the business concerning payment of the total amount to Mr Price, who has not been proceeded against for any misappropriation or defalcation of property. I have a high regard for the AMP Society, but feel in cases of this nature- and I understand there have been several recently- the superannuitant should be more fully protected by the Society which has allowed these clauses to be inserted in the trust deed. The employer should not be able to claim on funds which rightfully belong to the superannuitant.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I want to raise a matter that arises from a statement made by the honourable member for Phillip (Mr Birney) regarding the decision of somebody to place the royal coat of arms on the new High Court of Australia building. In an article which was published in a Sydney newspaper the honourable gentleman described the Chief Justice of Australia as pompous. The article reads:

A Liberal MP today described the Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick as ‘pompous’ for wanting a $2 million British coat of arms on the new High Court building.

I think that this is quite an unwarranted attack on the Chief Justice. For a start, the coat of arms is not costing $2m. I do not know how much it is costing, but it is not $2m. As I understand it, the decision was not made by the Chief Justice alone, because ever since the High Court of Australia Act was passed last year all of the decisions relating to the administration of the High Court have had to be taken by the court. So every member of the court is responsible for its decision, which the honourable member quite rightly condemns, but he is wrong in sheeting the whole of the blame on to the Chief Justice.

I went to the building and I was astonished and appalled at the waste of public funds on it. The extravagance of the building is, I repeat, appalling. The honourable member is correct in drawing attention to that aspect of it. It is a court of Australia. The court should proudly bear the

Australian coat of arms and none other, perhaps apart from the coats of arms of the various six States. This court exists to interpret the Commonwealth Constitution and to act in this country as the highest court of appeal from decisions made in any of the courts of the various States. To have the royal coat of arms there would be archaic. I believe that every member of the High Court, not just the Chief Justice, is guilty of an offence against Australia’s dignity and nationality. No red blooded Australian can get any pride out of having the royal coat of arms on the highest court in the land.

The honourable gentleman went on to say that it is the function of the Chief Justice to interpret the laws of Australia. It is about time that he understood that this is his only function. I must repeat: Why has the honourable gentleman gone out of his way to pick on one judge when he knows perfectly well that under the High Court of Australia Act all the Judges are equally responsible for decisions of the High Court. The High Court is not administered by a single judge- by the Chief Justice. It is administered by the court. It is quite clear that that is what has to happen.

What worries me is that, from the investigation I have made, the Public Works Committee has never been consulted by the High Court in this matter. The decision of the court- I repeat the court, not the Chief Justice- to put up the royal coat of arms in the High Court and the cost of it are matters that were never put to the Public Works Committee, ratified or endorsed. Of all organisations and institutions in the country that ought to know the law in relation to the duties of the Public Works Committee, it is the High Court. The High Court above all, should know that nothing it does should transcend or contravene the law. That is what has happened. The decision to put up that expensive coat of arms, although it did not cost the $2m mentioned, is a contravention of the law.

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

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-It is not often that we see a member of the Australian Parliament politically persecuted because of his conscientious beliefs. It is rare to see a defender of human rights publicly betrayed and, I say, crucified by his own leader. It is unprecendented that the alternative Prime Minister of Australia should become such an abject and habitual apologist for the Soviet Union and a puppet for the pro-communist left wing that he should destroy a decent, hard working and courageous colleague. Tonight I wish to refer to the shameful decision to remove from his position as Opposition spokesman on health and veterans’ affairs, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), a man for whom I have the highest personal regard-

Mr Morris:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr HODGMAN:

-Another pro-Moscow Soviet communist -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat.

Mr HODGMAN:

-Is interrupting my speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Denison that if he persists in speaking over the Chair he will be dealt with. Does the honourable member for Shortland wish to raise a point of order?

Mr Morris:

– On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order 75 which reads:

No Member may use offensive words against either House of the Parliament or any Member thereof, against any member of the Judiciary, or against any statute unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal.

I also draw you attention to Standing Order 76 which refers- I will not read it- to all imputations. There were distinct and direct imputations in the remarks of the honourable member. I ask that he withdraws them and at least have the courage -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Neil:

– Just because your party is run by a Soviet stooge.

Mr Morris:

-I ask the honourable member to withdraw the remarks that he just made.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for St George will withdraw.

Mr Neil:

-I said that his party was run by a Soviet stooge. Is that what I am supposed to withdraw?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-It was the Chair’s understanding, in the confusion of voices, that the honourable member had directed his comments on a personal basis to the honourable member for Shortland.

Mr Neil:
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If that was not the case, the remark does not require withdrawal.

Mr Holding:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. The honourable member for Denison made the statement- he is trying to evade it now- of the honourable member for Shortland that his speech was being interrupted by a proSoviet communist. That is offensive and it ought to be withdrawn.

Mr Morris:

– I demand that he withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Shortland ‘s reading of the Standing Orders reconciles with my recollection. It is difficult at times to follow the exchange of interjections and conversation when they are at levels higher than should occur. The Chair was attending to the honourable member for Dension to ensure that he did not contravene the Standing Orders, but he was sailing very close to the wind. I will require the honourable member for Denison to be more circumspect in the use of his language.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Morris:

– I raise a point of order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw his remark and to act like an honourable member of this chamber.

Mr HODGMAN:

– You are wasting my time again.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Shortland insists that he has been offended. On that basis I ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I have never mentioned that person at all.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member to withdraw without qualification.

Mr HODGMAN:

-To save the time that I have left to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. In a most moving statement to the people of Australia, the honourable member for Prospect, for whom we on this side of the House have a very high regard, gave the reasons for his disgraceful sacking at the hands of the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). The honourable member for Prospect said:

Mr Hayden ‘s only other criticism of me when informing me of my move was that I was too concerned about communism and the effect of left wing rhetoric -

Mr Scholes:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable member is not entitled to refer to another member by name.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is quoting.

Mr HODGMAN:

-He said :

  1. . I was too concerned about communism and the effect of left wing rhetoric on our electoral chances.

The Leader of the Opposition is exposed as one who is now totally a prisoner of the procommunist Left and one who is prepared to sacrifice decent, hard working and courageous colleagues to keep in good with Moscow. I say, despite the time I have lost, that the Leader of the Opposition has -

Mr Morris:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Earlier I drew your attention to Standing Order 76 which is quite explicit. It states:

All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.

Not only does the honourable member for Denison not have the courage to raise this matter in the presence of the Leader of the Opposition, but he is offending the Standing Orders and I ask that he be made to withdraw.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member for Shortland is not entitled to debate the point of order. The honourable member raises a point of order with some merit but the Chair would find its duty much more simple if it were clear whether the honourable member was relating his complaint to the Standing Orders as they stand or to the standard of debate as practised consistently in this House. Under the latter, there is a vigour brought to debate which really tests the Standing Orders. In a case where an honourable member can persuade the Chair and the House that another honourable member has genuinely offended, the Chair would request the honourable member offending to accommodate the situation and to withdraw. In all sincerity, I put it to the honourable member for Shortland that in this case there may be a hyper-sensitivity demonstrated here not consistent with the general standard of debate in the House. I call the honourable member for Corio.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a matter which I am sure will not raise the heat of the chamber quite so much.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask that you consult the Standing Orders to see whether it is in order for the call to be given to a member of the Opposition when members of the Opposition have completely and spuriously disrupted the speech of the honourable member for Denison. They did not allow him to speak. They wasted his time with spurious points or order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! There is no point of order. The honourable member for St George will resume his seat.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not answer that allegation because time is too short. I raise a matter which relates to the application of the social -

Mr Hodgman:

– Shame on you.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I think the honourable member for Denison will most likely support what I have to say. I wish he would allow me to say it.

Mr Hodgman:

– It is a shame that you did not -

Mr Baume:

– You did not let him say it.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Oh, shut up, you galah! You are a fraud and you know it.

Mr Hodgman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. With respect, I submit to you that it is quite wrong for the Opposition, having taken up my time and for the honourable member for Corio, in view of his attempts to shut me up, to refer to me as a fraud. I seek a withdrawal of his remarks that I am a fraud.

Mr SCHOLES:

-That is a spurious point of order designed to waste time. Now, are you going to deal with him or not?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Corio.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I want to raise -

Mr Baume:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Unparliamentary words were used and a withdrawal was sought. I cannot see, Sir, why a withdrawal is not required.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The Chair is not aware of an offensive remark being made or of a request for a withdrawal. I again lay that condition at the feet of honourable members who insist on engaging in noisy interjection and prolonged and sustained conversation.

Mr Baume:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take the point of order that I am offended by the honourable member for Corio calling one of my colleagues a galah.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If the honourable member for Corio used that term, I require him to withdraw it.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw any term I used which was offensive. I raise a matter which is of serious concern to a number of people and has a direct relevance to the future development of our defence forces. At present there is a situation whereby members serving in the defence forces reserve receive their pay for service tax-free. When that member puts in his time in the interests of the nation, he receives taxfree income. I think that every member of this chamber is aware of that situation and agrees with it.

There is, however, a second group of persons serving in the Citizen Military Forces who are currently being persecuted by the Department of Social Security, I think within the law, but nevertheless outside the spirit of the arrangements for those people. They are having the amounts they receive in payment for service in the CMF or other reserve occupations in the armed forces deducted from their unemployment benefit when that benefit is their sole source of income. So in fact they are being taxed on 100 per cent of their earnings less a minor amount. They are much worse off in income terms than would normally be the case with the person who receives additional income in the form of tax-free income. These people are penalised. Not only are they penalised directly and in advance, but they are penalised in arrears. They receive their cheques once every six months. That income is regarded as past earnings and they are then penalised on unemployment benefit payments which they will be in receipt of in the future.

Mr Baume:

– They can average it.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Whether they can average it or not, the facts of the matter are that they are penalised for the receipt of moneys for service in the reserve, whereas a person who may have an income of $20,000 a year is given a tax-free benefit. I do not dispute that tax-free benefit. What I am saying is that all members of the reserve should be treated the same. Members of the reserve who participated in a three-day camp in Victoria over the long weekend will lose two weeks’ unemployment benefit for their service to the nation. Those who participate in long camps- and there are a few of those each yearand who happen to be unemployed for a relatively short period will be required to go one week without unemployment benefit before payment is restored. I think the Government ought to do something about the matter.

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

Mr BAILLIEU:
La Trobe

– I too raise a matter in the adjournment debate tonight which I am sure will meet with the concern of all honourable members. Some days ago, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret

Guilfoyle) made certain announcements regarding funding programs under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act. I notice that a great many members of the Parliament, both Government and Opposition, had some very good news regarding those announcements. However, it was soon brought to my attention that the Ferntree Gully and District Association for the Mentally Handicapped did not win approval for a residential hostel for the Knoxbrooke association. As my colleague, the honourable member for Casey (Mr Falconer) confirms, this is a most excellent local organisation which applied in 1976 for Commonwealth funding towards the establishment of a hostel to accommodate certain residents of the area who are mentally handicapped.

It was a great disappointment to me to discover that the Knoxbrooke proposal had missed out on the funding announced for 1980-81.I say tonight that, from the point of view of residents of my electorate, the announcements so far are not acceptable. I came into bat in this Parliament in 1 975 and one of the specific matters on which I was elected to this Parliament was that I would obtain for the Knoxbrooke group funding for that residential hostel. At the time, I went out on a limb to give an undertaking that in the course of my parliamentary career I would obtain funding for this proposal. There would be some cynics around who whould say that my time is running out. However, I am not one of those who would likely succumb to a situation whereby the Government that I represent fails to make a commitment which I believe should be met. I say that it should be met because, in relative terms, the number of mentally handicapped people in the electorate of La Trobe who are getting to the age where they can no longer be cared for by their parents and consequently will require hostel accommodation is very considerable indeed.

I was pleased to see that the Monkami association gained approval for its hostel proposal, and I congratulate the honourable member for Casey in that regard. However, I say in the most unequivocal terms that I believe that the Minister for Social Security should look again at the funding programs for 1 980-8 1 . On the basis of equity, justice and priorities for those most in need, I believe that the Minister should give the most earnest consideration to approving the Knoxbrooke project. In the days and weeks ahead, I will be reinforcing that statement at every opportunity that is available to me. On behalf of the people of La Trobe, I cannot accept the decision so far and I appeal once again to the Minister to reconsider her announcement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

page 968

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr John McLeay to present a Bill for an Act relating to the Australian Bicentennial Authority.

Mr Howard to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Currency Act 1 965.

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956.

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National Railways Act 1917.

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Air Navigation Act 1920.

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National Airlines Act 1 945.

Mr Hunt to present a Bill for an Act relating to the provision of certain equipment for Qantas Airways Limited.

Mr Garland to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of bounty on the production of certain penicillin.

page 968

PAPERS

The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 1 9 March 1 980, pursuant to statute:

Defence Act- Determinations- 1 980-

No. 6- Field Allowance.

No. 7- Married Trainee’s Allowance.

Defence Amendment Act- Interim Determinations-

Statutory Rules 1980, Nos 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48.

page 968

REPLIES TO REQUESTS FOR DETAILED INFORMATION

Parliamentary Library

  1. 1 ) When was the radio and television transcription service established by the Parliamentary Library.
  2. How many requests for transcripts of radio and television programs monitored have there been in each year since its inception.
  3. Was there any increase in these transcript requests during (a) 1977, (b) 1978 and (c) 1979; if so, what was the extent of that increase.
  4. How many radio and television programs were monitored as at 30 November 1979 and what were those programs.
  5. Has there been any increase in the number of radio and television programs monitored by the service in those 3 years.
  6. What was the actual and estimated allocation of funds by the Parliamentary Library in each financial year for this service from its inception to 1979-80.
  7. If there has been any increase in transcript requests in those 3 years, has any consideration been given to an increase in (a) the number of staff employed, (b) increase in salaries paid due to the specialised nature of staff positions in this service and (c) the quality of any or all requisite equipment used for this service.
  1. In mid 1970.
  2. –
  1. Yes: (a) An increase over previous year of 652 (58.7 per cent); (b) An increase over previous year of 515 (29.2 per cent) and (c) An increase over previous year of 1,273 (55.9 per cent).

Radio- 7.45 a.m. ABC news AM 6 p.m. ABC news PM

Broadband

Correspondents Report

Guest of Honour

Newsvoice

National Press Club Luncheon address

Television-

Willesee at Seven

Nationwide

Four Corners

Countrywide

Plus special programs on request.

  1. ) Yes, five additional programs were added in this time.
  2. The funding of this service has not been treated as a separate item in Departmental accounting.

  3. (a) Yes, additional professional supervision and typing capacity has been provided within the Department’s overall staff ceiling.

    1. Yes, salaries paid are those determined for equivalent public service positions.
    2. Yes, the equipment used for the automatic monitoring of programs has been up-graded, videotape equipment added and ancilliary equipment (e.g. cassette players) replaced with new units.

Parliamentary Library

  1. 1 ) What arrangements are made by the Department of the Parliamentary Library (a) during sitting periods of the Parliament and (b) during Parliamentary adjournment periods for temporary replacement of staff absent due to illness or on leave.
  2. What arrangements are made for overlapping the employment of a member of the Library’s staff who has resigned or left that Department with the employment of the member of staff replacing the first-mentioned person.
  3. Is the specialised nature of many positions in the Library such that over-lapping would be beneficial; if not, why not.
  4. Is any provision made by the Library for an unattached list, similar to that maintained by the Public Service Board, for use when staff are absent from duty, on leave or for other reasons, for extended periods.
  5. If not, has consideration been given to some similar devices.
  6. What was the outcome of any considerations.
  7. How many Parliamentary Library staff have applied for (a) leave without pay for periods in excess of two months or (b) to be placed on an unattached list, in each calendar year since 1972.
  8. How many of these applications were (a) granted and ( b ) refused in each year.
  1. 1 ) Arrangements are made by the Department of the Parliamentary Library (a) during sitting periods of the Parliament and (b) during Parliamentary adjournment periods for temporary replacement of staff absent owing to illness or on leave by the use of relief staff located within the Department or subject to staff ceilings and funds availability by the employment of temporary officers, either full-time or parttime as required.
  2. The Department’s ability to overlap employment is affected by several factors some of which are outside its control, e.g. the first mentioned person being the subject of an appeal if promoted within the Public Service; inadequate recruitment time after receipt of a resignation. In general, the Department attempts to make similar arrangements to ( 1 ) above.
  3. Yes, but subject to the provisos in (2) above.
  4. Yes.
  5. and (6) Not applicable.
  6. To provide answers requires a lengthy search of many staff files; the information will be provided as soon as the search has been completed.
  7. The information is being sought.

Parliamentary Library

  1. 1 ) Is it a primary function of the Department of the Parliamentary Library to meet the needs of individual senators and members.
  2. Is any change of emphasis on this function planned.
  3. Has any change of emphasis on this function taken place since 1 July 1977; if so, by what authority and at what time.
  4. If any change had taken place, when was the Parliament informed or why was the Parliament not informed.
  1. 1 ) Yes, in relation to the Parliamentary duties of senators and members.
  2. and (3) No.
  3. Not relevant: See ( 1 ) above.

Parliamentary Library

  1. 1 ) What is the position of the Parliamentary Library in relation to the installation of a computer or computer terminal for the accessing of information held by the Library.
  2. Have any Library staff been solely or partially employed within the last 4 years in assessing the suitability of computerisation for all or any pan of the Library.
  3. If so, how many staff were so employed, what were their names, designations and salaries, when did this assessment begin and how many reports have been submitted to (a) the Parliamentary Librarian, (b) the Presiding Officers and (c) the Library Standing Committees of both House of the Parliament.
  4. Have any Library staff received any preparatory training for the computerisation of the Library; if so, how many staff have received this training.

  1. The Department of the Parliamentary Library has no plans for the installation of a computer or computer terminals for the accessing of its own information holdings. The matter will be investigated as part of the forthcoming consultancy study of the information needs of the Parliament. In 1980-81 the Department plans to install four terminals giving access to 3 external data bases, viz.:

    1. Attorney-General ‘s Department legal data base.
    2. 1 976 Australian Census data base.
    3. A large North American bibliographic data base.
  2. Yes.
  3. A number of staff have been partially employed for widely varying periods of time in assessing the suitability of computerisation in the Department. The principal activities concern meetings of the Department’s Technical Developments Committee, discussions with Public Service Board and negotiations with Executive Departments.

Officers concerned with such activities at various times have been:

The assessment began in 1972 when the Library Committee considered the report of an exploratory survey. The Committee has received a total of twelve reports either directly from the Parliamentary Librarian or from the Technical Advances Sub-Committee of the Library Committee. Five reports have been submitted to the Technical Advances Sub-Committee by the Department and some six reports have been received by the Parliamentary Librarians since 1972. No separate reports have been submitted to the Presiding Officers who receive all reports.

  1. Preparatory training has been directed specifically at operating computer terminals. More generalised training has taken the form of short courses, demonstrations, conferences and seminars, and has involved some 35 officers in one or more of these activities.

Parliamentary Library

  1. 1 ) What is the position of the Parliamentary Library in relation to the acquisition of rare books.
  2. Was this position formulated after discussion with other Parliamentary Departments and the National Library.
  3. What has been the allocation of funds for the purchase of rare and valuable books by the Parliamentary Library for each of the financial years from 1973-74 to 1979-80.
  4. What are the titles purchased in each of those financial years and where are they displayed or held.
  1. The Presiding Officers have adopted a Collection Development Policy which includes provision for the acquisition of rare books related to the history of Parliamentary practices and traditions. The Parliamentary Library has always included ‘rare’ books of interest to Parliament in its collection.
  2. The Library and Joint House Departments consult frequently on matters related to rare books. The subject has been discussed at meetings of Permanent Heads of Parliamentary Departments and the relevant advice of National Library officers has been sought. Mrs Pauline Fanning, I.S.O., M.B.E., B.A., Hon. M.A., F.L.A.A., previously Director, Australian National Humanities Library, National Library of Australia is now Consultant to the Parliamentary Library on its special collections and relations with the National Library on such collections.
  3. The Depanment does not have a separate financial allocation for the purchase of rare and valuable books.
  4. It is difficult to give a precise list of titles as the definition of ‘rare and valuable’ depends on factors which change fromtime to time. The Churchill Collection purchased for $2,000 in 1974 was a recent publication then but because of the limited edition, could be described as now both rare and valuable. The collection is displayed in the Main Reading Room of the Library.

Following the adoption of the Collection Development Policy a special attempt was made to acquire some items in the current financial year which were available overseas but unlikely to become available again because of the keen interest of overseas buyers and the investment value of such volumes. The items acquired are:

More, Sir T. De Optimo Reip. Statu, deque nova insula Utopia. 3rd Edn., Original blind tooled calf by Nicholas Spierinck. 4to., Basle: December, 1518.

Smith, T. The Common-wealth of England, and manner of Government thereof. 4to., vellum. 1 60 1 .

Selden, J. Of the Judicature in Parliaments. 1st. Edn., 8vo.,calf. 1681.

Raleigh, Sir W. The Privileges and Practice of Parliaments on England. (With) The Prerogative of Parliaments in England. 4to., calf. 1628.

The Bill for Regulating Abuses in Elections. 400. folio, unbound. 1679. (Harrington, Sir James,) The Benefit of the Ballot. 4pp., folio, unbound. 1679.

Johnston, N. The Excellency of Monarchical Government. Folio, calf. 1686. Presentation Copy.

Rousseau, J. J. Treatise on the Social Compact. 1st. English Edn., 8 vo., calf. 1764.

Marx, K. Capital. 1st. Ed., 2 Vols., 8vo., cloth. 1887.

Priestly, J. Essay on the First principles of Government. 8vo.,½calf. 1768½.

Ricardo, D. On the Principles of Political Economy. 3rd. Ed., 8vo.,½calf, 1821.

Sydney, A. Discourses concerning Government. Folio, calf. 1698.

Smith, The Common- Wealth of England 1633.

Sprigge, Modest Plea for Equal Commonwealth 1659.

Bacon, Baccoiana 1679.

Whitelocke, Monarchy Asserted 1660.

Lyndewode, Provincaile Seu Constitutiones Anglie 1505.

Parliament, Priviledges and Practices 1 628.

Rymer, View of Government in Europe 1689.

Mill, John Stuart, Autobiography 1 873.

Bacon, Operum Moralium Et Civilium 1638.

Some of the more recent purchases require conservation before display and such arrangements are being made. They are temporarily held in a security container in the Parliamentary Librarian’s office. Others are regularly displayed in the glass case in King’s Hall which formerly housed the Churchill Collection.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 972

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Radio Station Licence Fees (Question No. 4561)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 30 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Were radio station licence renewals billed in mid-July 1979 at the rate of $50 for ships and other increased rates effective retrospectively from 1 July 1979 without prior notice of the increases.
  2. What monitoring or other services are provided in return for these revenues and at what cost.
  3. Has the decision to increase licence fees resulted in a loss to volunteer coast guard services which pay licence fees in bulk to save book work by members and the Department which bulk bills them.
  4. Did at least one local inspector advise that any increase in July would not affect prior collections.
  5. Will this fee lead to bad debts depleting the resources of the service and enticing some members to opt out of the service and use unlicensed or pirate radios.
  6. Does this action constitute a breach of confidence by the Government and will this action threaten a valuable safeguard for life and property comparable to lifesaving clubs but costing Governments nothing whereas in most countries governments provide the service.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. The fee increases were not retrospective. The fee increases which came into effect on 1 July 1979 were announced to the media on 24 May 1979 and notified in the Gazette on 29 June 1979.
  2. Marine radio services (harbour mobile and ship stations) accounted for 32,000 (6 per cent) of the total of 489,000 authorised radio stations at 30 June 1979. It is not possible to separate the cost of Departmental activities specifically related to these marine services. The total cost of administering the radio spectrum is, however, estimated at $7.7m for the year ending 30 June 1979. This compares with total licence revenue of$8.3m for the same period. The Radio Frequency Management Division of my Department has responsibility for the licensing and regulation of radio services in accordance with national and international requirements.

This entails, inter alia, the development of equipment specifications for licensing purposes, frequency assignments, interference investigations, monitoring of services and prosecution of offenders. Simultaneous monitoring of several VHF and HF marine channels is conducted as required for interference or investigation purposes. Regular weekend monitoring was curtailed in 1976 due to financial restrictions, but monitoring periods are now again being extended.

  1. Numerous boating clubs and associations have made representations to me concerning the effects of the fee scale on their members. I have spoken with representatives of such clubs and it is clear that many have been adversely affected by the fee increases. For this reason I have had the scale of the fees reviewed and will shortly be putting to the Government specific proposals to relieve the financial burden on radio users.
  2. There is commonly some misunderstanding about the implementation of licence fee increases. It is, however, standard procedure for new licence applications submitted before the fee increase to be accepted at the old rate of licence fee. On the other hand, licence renewals due after that date are subject to the new fee and are billed accordingly.
  3. 5 ) and ( 6 ) See answer to ( 3 ) above.

Telephone Overcharging (Question No. 4785)

Mr Innes:

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

  1. 1 ) Will his Department release publicly, the computer print-out file entitled ‘IOC Problems’ referred to in the Australian Financial Review Article of 2 May 1979 (article by A. McCathie).
  2. Are the references to overtimings, charging faults and double chargings true reflections of actual happenings or conceivable happenings at the IOC trunk exchange and/or other trunk or local exchanges in Australia.
  3. Will his Department or Telecom Australia release (a) past files or print-outs similar to that entitled ‘ IOC Problems ‘ (November-December 1978) for any or all telephone exchanges, so as to acquaint the public fully with some of the ways in which they can be overcharged on telephone bills and (b) current files and print-outs as they become available.
  4. In what other ways may telephone bills be subject to overcharging.
  5. In what ways is Telecom or his Department attempting to eliminate problems of overcharging.
  6. What percentage of the national telephone bill of $ 1,080,000,000 is due to overcharging.
  7. 7 ) Can this estimate be made for past or future years.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. to (7) The ‘print-outs’ referred to in the Australian Financial Review article are believed to be a copy of handwritten notes maintained by operation supervisors at the Sydney (Pitt) Manual Assistance Centre for recording disturbances during shifts. The maintenance of such notes is standard practice at all Manual Assistance Centres, but it is considered that the release of working documents of this nature would not provide meaningful information to persons not fully conversant with the total operational system.

References in the article to overtimings and charging faults in relation to the Pitt IOC exchange were drawn from a copy of the minutes of a meeting of an engineering operations team which meets monthly to review the performance of this very large and complex exchange, to investigate and follow up any observed deviations from normal operation, and detect potential problems. Almost all of the problems referred to in the minutes represent minor disturbances to the IOC exchange operation which have no impact on subscriber connections.

In the event of a failure of a IOC exchange all metering is suspended until the controlling computers return to normal operation. At that stage calls which have terminated are recognised and are cleared down. Claims that the IOC exchange causes massive overcharging when computerfailures occur are therefore unfounded. Combinations of faults in the Telecom network can give rise to incorrect charging but the probability of these faults occurring together to cause overcharging to a particular subscriber is very small. In general the network is designed to ‘fail safe’, that is, to either undercharge or not meter at all when a failure occurs.

All queries concerning subscribers’ accounts are investigated to the fullest extent in both the technical and accounting areas and there is no hesitation in making an adjustment to an account which is shown to be incorrect. If there is any justifiable reason to doubt the accuracy of the account the benefit of doubt is given to the subscriber.

As mentioned, the network is designed to undercharge in cases of equipment failure, however, the overall level of complaints about metered calls is low compared with the use made of the national network. Less than 1 per cent of telephone accounts are queried in a total of about 9 million accounts issued each year with a large number of these complaints being related to new subscribers’ first accounts. Instances of overcharging due to proven technical failures are rare. Nevertheless about.05 per cent of accounts issued are adjusted in favour of the subscribers concerned, mostly as a matter of business judgment. These figures include cases where error is due to human factors.

I have previously indicated the Government’s commitment to the introduction of a system of automatic message accounting for telephone accounts. Such a system is now being introduced progressively for international subscriber dialling. Introduction of AMA for STD calls will be a substantial engineering undertaking involving the installation of new equipment. Although the number of accounts presently disputed is small such a call record system would obviously be appreciated by many subscribers and Telecom presently plans to introduce AMA for STD calls progressively as an optional service.

Answers to Questions on Notice (Question No. 4963)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 18 October 1979:

When can I expect answers to Questions Nos 2225 and 2255, which first appeared on the Notice Paper on 27 September 1978.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answers to his Questions Nos 2225 and 2255 (House of Representatives Weekly Hansard, 22 November 1979, pages 3444 to 3447).

Health Insurance Funds: Statistical Information (Question No. 5009)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 October 1 979:

  1. What was the quarterly statistical information required from health insurance funds by circular H.B.S.12.
  2. What quarterly statistical information has been required since 1 September 1979 as advised in circular M.B. 208.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. The quarterly statistical information required since 1 November 1978 from health insurance funds on H.B.S. Quarterly Return No. 12 as advised in M.B. Circular No. 1 82 /H.B. Circular No. 126 is listed below:

Medical-

  1. Persons Not Medically Insured

Single registrations

Family registrations

Total registrations

Coverage

Numberof services

Cost of services

Commonwealth benefit paid

Separate information is collected for Pensioner Health Benefits cardholders and their dependants.

  1. Persons Medically Insured for the Basic Benefits Table and each Optional Variation-to-Basic Benefits Table, with or without Ancillaries

Single membership

Family membership

Total membership

Coverage

Numberof services

Cost of services

Commonwealth benefit paid

Fund benefit paid

  1. Persons Medically Insured for Optional (Supplementary) Only Benefits Tables and Optional (Supplementary) Benefits and Ancillaries Combined Tables

Single membership

Family membership

Total membership

Coverage

Number of services

Cost of services

Commonwealth benefit paid

Fund benefit paid

This information is collected separately for contributors with and without basic or optional variationtobasic medical coverage.

  1. Persons Insured for Ancillary Benefits

Single membership

Family membership

Total membership

Coverage

Numberof services

Cost of services

Fund benefit paid

This information is collected separately for contributors to tables covering only ancillary benefits to optional variation-to-basic tables which cover ancillaries, and to optional (Supplementary) tables which also cover ancillaries, and in total.

  1. Total Persons Insured for Ancillary Benefits by each Type of Ancillary

Numberof services

Cost of services

Fund benefit paid

HOSPITAL ( Ordinary Account )-

  1. Persons Insured for the Basic Benefits Table and each Optional (Variation-to-Basic) Benefits Table

Membership for single, family and total contributors and coverage

Amount of hospital fund benefit paid and numberof days for which benefit paid

Amount of hospital fund benefit paid for professional services and the number of days for which benefit paid

Amount of hospital fund benefit paid for outpatient services and the number of services for which benefit paid

  1. Persons Insured for each Supplementary Benefits Table

Membership for single, family and total contributors and coverage

Amount of hospital fund benefit paid and number of days for which benefit paid

  1. Total Ancillaries

Membership for single, family and total contributors and coverage

Number and cost of services and fund benefit paid for ancillary services by type of ancillary

  1. The quarterly statistical information required since 1 September 1979 from health insurance funds on HBS Quarterly Return No. 13 as advised in MB Circular No. 208/HB Circular No. 1 37 is listed below.

Medical-

  1. Persons Registered for Uninsured Commonwealth Medical Benefits

Number of services

Cost of services

Commonwealth benefit paid

This information is collected separately for Pensioner

Health Benefits cardholders and their dependants, for others and in total.

  1. Persons Insured for the Basic Benefits Table and each Optional Variation-to-Basic Benefits Table with or without Ancillaries
  1. Persons Insured for Supplementary Only Benefits Tables and Supplementary Benefits and Ancillaries Combined Tables

Single membership

Family membership

Total membership

Coverage

Numberof services

Cost of services

Commonwealth benefit paid

Fund benefit paid

This information is collected separately for Pensioner

Health Benefits cardholders and their dependants, for other contributors with basic or optional variationtobasic medical coverage, and for other contributors without basic or optional variation-to-basic medical coverage.

  1. Persons Insured for Ancillary Benefits

Single membership

Family membership

Total membership

Coverage

Number of services

Cost of services

Fund benefit paid

This information is collected separately for contribu tors to tables covering only ancillaries, to optional variation-to-basic tables which cover ancillaries and to supplementary tables which also cover ancillaries, and in total.

  1. Total Persons Insured for Ancillary Benefits by each Type of Ancillary

Number of services

Cost of services

Fund benefit paid

Hospital (Ordinary Account)-

  1. Persons Insured for the Basic Benefits Table, each Optional (Variation-to-Basic) Benefits Table, Total Basic Benefits, each Supplementary Benefits Table and Total Supplementary Benefits Tables

Membership for single, family and total contributors and coverage

  1. Persons Insured for the Basic Benefits Table, each Optional (Variation-to-Basic) Benefits Table, and Total Basic Benefits

Amount of hospital fund benefit paid and numberof days for which benefit paid

Amount of hospital fund benefit paid for professional services and the number of days for which benefit paid

Amount of hospital fund benefit paid for outpatient services and the number of services for which benefit paid

Amount of benefit paid and number of days for which benefit paid for ordinary and extensive care long-term nursing home type patients in hospitals separately

  1. Persons Insured for each Supplementary Benefits Table and Total Supplementary Benefits Tables

Amount of hospital fund benefit paid and number of days for which benefit paid

  1. Total Ancillaries

    1. Membership for single, family and total contributors and coverage
    2. Number cost and fund benefit paid for ancillary services by type of ancillary

Information from Items A, B, C and D(i) are collected separately for Pensioner Health Benefit cardholders and their dependants, for others and in total. Items B and C are also collected separately for recognised and private hospitals.

Health insurance funds are only required to submit information in respect of those tables for which they are registered. In well managed funds much of the information provided to the Commonwealth is used for planning and administration in such areas as finance, marketing, actuarial, etc.

Information previously collected on Quarterly Return HBS No. 12 not now collected on Quarterly Return HBS No. 13

Medical-

  1. 1 ) No information is collected now on the number of persons who have registered with private medical funds for the Uninsured Commonwealth Medical Benefits.

Information not previously collected on Quarterly Return HBS No. 12 now collected on Quarterly Return HBS No. 13

Medical-

  1. 1 ) With the exception of Ancillaries, all medical information (both membership and services) is now required to be split between Pensioner Health Benefits cardholders and dependants and others.
  2. With the exception of Supplementary and Ancillary Services, the Number of Services, Cost of Services,

Commonwealth Benefits Paid and Fund Benefit Paid are now required to be split between

  1. where both Commonwealth and Fund benefits are paid: and
  2. where fund benefits only are paid.

This is required for those services paid from the Basic Medical Benefits Table and each Optional Variation-to-Basic Medical Benefits Table in respect of all persons other than Pensioner Health Benefits cardholders and dependants.

Hospital-

  1. With the exception of the Number of Services, Cost of Services and Fund Benefit Paid in respect of Ancillaries, all hospital information is now required to be split between Pensioner Health Benefits cardholders and their dependants, and others.
  2. With the exception of Ancillaries, the Number of Days and Fund Benefit paid is to be split between recognised and private hospitals. Information is also being collected on a new category of patient- longterm nursing home type patient in hospital by type of hospital and type of patient (ordinary/extensive care).

Note: Medical services statistics in respect of patients classified by their doctor as ‘disadvantaged’ are not collected through registered Funds. Payments for these services are made by the Department of Health direct to the doctors under the bulk billing arrangements.

School Dental Therapy Program (Question No. 5054)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 November 1979 :

  1. Was the national school dental therapy program planned as at the 1975-76 Budget to cater for all primary students within 7 years and subsequently for pre-school and junior high school attenders.
  2. What proportion of those programs has been achieved in the 4 years since that Budget.

  3. What changes in:

    1. Federal and
    2. total spending has occurred in later budgets in real terms for:
    1. capital and
    2. recurrent expenditure at:
    1. school dental clinics and
    2. B ) dental therapist training institutions.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. In 1979-80 it is expected that some 40 per cent of primary school children will receive dental care under the School Dental Scheme. This compares with some 30 per cent in 1978-79.

Parliamentary Sitting Days (Question No. 5124)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Leader of the House, upon notice, on 20 November 1 979 :

  1. 1 ) On how many days did the Australian (a) Senate and (b) House of Representatives sit during (i) 1977 and (ii) 1978.
  2. Is he able to provide similar information in respect of the (a) United States of America (i) Senate and (ii) House of Representatives, (b) Canadian (i) Senate and (ii) House of Representatives and (c) United Kingdom (i) House of Lords and (ii) House of Commons for the same years.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) This information is provided in the publications Work of the Session and Business of the Senate, which are available from the respective Table Offices.
  2. I do not have this information but expect it would be available from published sources.

Aviation: Fuel Tax (Question No. 5151)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1979:

  1. What sum was paid by each airline holding a regular Public Transport Licence in respect of Federal tax and levy on fuel during each year from 1 972-73 to 1 978-79 and 1 July 1979 to date.
  2. What proportion of (a) operating expenditure, (b) total expenditure, (c) passenger and freight revenue and (d) the average passenger fare paid did this expenditure represent for each airline in each of the years and the period referred to in Part ( 1 ).
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Whilst the rate of federal tax and levy on fuel is readily available the airlines consider that their actual consumption of fuel is commercially confidential information. I am therefore not prepared to make this information available.

Aviation: Food and Refreshments (Question No. 5152)

Mr Morris:

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

  1. What (a) capital costs, (b) operating costs and (c) total costs were incurred by each airline holding a regular public transport licence in the provision of food and refreshments provided in association with the operation of airline services during each year from 1972-73 to 1978-79 and 1 July 1979 to date.
  2. What proportion of passenger revenue did each of the items of cost referred to in part ( 1 ) represent.
  3. What was the average cost per passenger carried of food and refreshments from each airline during each of the years and the period referred to in Part ( 1 ).
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) I consider that the information sought by the honourable member to be confidential to the airline ‘s operations and it is not proposed to make it available.

Air Fares to Norfolk Island (Question No. 5212)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 November 1 979:

  1. Is the distance from Sydney to (a) Auckland, (b) Noumea, (c) Honiara and (d) Norfolk Island (i) 1,343, (ii) 1,231, (iii) 1,788 and (iv) 1,043 nautical miles, respectively; if not, what are the distances.
  2. Is the cost of the economy air fare to these destinations (a) $165, (b) $175, (c) $283 and (d) $177 respectively; if not, what are these economy air fares.
  3. Do these fares represent a cost to the travelling public of (a) 12.2c, (b) 14.2c, (c) 15.8c and (d) 16.9c per nautical mile, respectively; if not, what travelling costs per nautical mile do prevail.
  4. If the costs for Australian tourists travelling to Norfolk Island exceed that prevailing for other South Pacific destinations, what action will the Government take to protect the economy of Norfolk Island, an Australian Territory largely dependent upon tourism, from loss of Australian tourist business.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No, the distance in nautical miles from Sydney to (a) Auckland, (b) Noumea, (c) Honiara and (d) Norfolk Island is (i) 1, 166, (ii) 1,068, (iii) 1,549 and (iv) 904 respectively.
  2. No, the cost of the economy fare to these destinations is (a) $165, (b) $179, (c) $269.80 and (d) $175 in off peak periods and $195 in peak periods (roughly equivalent to school holidays).
  3. 3 ) No, these fares represent a cost per nautical mile to the travelling public of (a) 14.2c, (b) 16.8c, (c) 17.4c and (d) 1 9.4c in off peak periods and 2 1 . 6c in peak periods.
  4. The Minister for Home Affairs and my predecessor announced on 22 November 1979 that the Government had approved the introduction of medium jet services between Sydney and Norfolk Island and agreed in principle to the upgrading of Norfolk Island Airport as soon as possible. The operation of medium sized jets such as the Fokker F28 or British Aerospace 146 will offer considerable benefits including a faster, more efficient service and will be of major benefit to Norfolk Island tourism which provides the basis of its economic viability.

International Mail (Question No. 5242)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a decision of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) at an October 1979 conference to increase the imbalance charge for international mail (whereby countries receiving larger amounts of mail than they export are compensated for handling costs) from A$0.57 to A$2.04.
  2. Is it a fact that Australia Post will receive A$ 13m as a result of the increase; if not, what sum will Australia Post receive.
  3. Is it also a fact that the United States of America and Great Britain are 2 of the countries sending us more mail than they receive from us, and as a consequence are 2 of the countries to pay a considerable part of that A$13m; if so, what sum will each of these countries pay.
  4. Does a large percentage of periodicals, journals and academic books subscribed to by Australian libraries originate in these 2 countries; if so, to what extent.
  5. Is the purchase value of these periodicals, etc., in the vicinity of$ 10m p.a.: if not, what is the purchase value.
  6. Will the Government provide compensation by way of increased purchasing grants or any other measure, for libraries affected by more expensive periodical postage rates from Great Britain or the United States of America should either of those 2 nations increase international periodical postage rates as a more electorally acceptable alternative to increased domestic postage rates; if so, what manner of compensation is planned.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The amounts quoted, however, which are rates per kilogram, refer only to excesses of letters, postcards, small packets and printed papers (other than those enclosed in special bags.) The Universal Postal Union Congress decided to retain the existing rate, equivalent to about $0.56 per kilogram of excess, for the special printed papers bags known in Australia as ‘Printpost Direct Bags’.
  2. It is difficult, at this stage, to estimate the precise amount but current estimates indicate that Australia could receive an additional $A9m (approximately) in the first year of application of the new rates.
  3. Yes. Because of changing mail patterns, however, it is difficult to estimate, at this stage, sums which will be paid in 1981 when the new rates come into force. It is expected though that, from 1981, the annual sums paid to Australia will be something in excess of $5m from United States of America and $2m from United Kingdom.
  4. It is estimated that nearly 90 per cent of overseas publications purchased by the bulk of Australian libraries come from the United States of America and Great Britain. The larger academic institutions might be expected to be closer to 80 per cent because of their foreign purchases to support various teaching programmes. The National Library of Australia purchases 47 per cent of its publications from the United States of America and Great Britain, the remainder come from other sources to fulfil the National Library ‘s policy and role of collecting material which other libraries deliberately do not collect.
  5. The estimated annual expenditure by Australian libraries on library materials is $50 million. No figures are available nor could be accurately estimated for the purchase value of periodicals only. The figure of $10 million is considered low and a value of $25 million could be more realistic.
  6. The effects of possible increases in postal rates for Commonwealth funded libraries will be kept under review by the Government.

Railway Line from Western Australia to Queensland (Question No.5267)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of Monday, 8 November 1979, that American investors would build a trans-Australia railway from Western Australia to Queensland in return for certain concessions.
  2. Is he able to say if any studies have been undertaken by the Australian Government, the State Governments or the private sector into the proposed line.
  3. ) Have any estimates of the line ‘s cost been made.
  4. Would the line be viable.
  5. Would his Government consider building such a line if it were found to be economically viable or to grant the tax holiday referred to by the Premier of Queensland.
  6. Has he or his predecessor been consulted by the Queensland and Western Australian Governments in respect of the proposed rail line.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No.
  2. ) I am not aware of any such studies.
  3. No.
  4. The viability of such a line could only be determined after a detailed study.
  5. The proposal as suggested by the Queensland Premier does not involve the Commonwealth in constructing the line.
  6. The Prime Minister has written to the Premier of Western Australia and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory seeking their view on the proposal put forward by the Queensland Premier.

Contraceptive Pill (Question No. 5276)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 9 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Age of 10 October 1979 entitled ‘Sterilisation takes over from the Pill’.
  2. If so, is he able to state the total number of prescriptions for the contraceptive pill in each of the last 5 years.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I do not have information on the total number of prescriptions for the contraceptive pill. However, the total number of prescriptions for oral contraceptives supplied as pharmaceutical benefits for each of the past five years is as follows:

Timor (Question No. 5293)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 February 1 980:

On what dates and for what purposes have RAAF aircraft flown to Timor in the last 6 years?

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Records available show that RAAF aircraft flew to Timor on the following dates: 11 January 1975. 19, 28, 30 and 31 August 1975. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1 1, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 26, 29 and 30 September 1975. 1,2, 3, 4 and 17 October 1975. 14 and 15 November 1975. 13 and 14 November 1979. (No details are shown for 1974 as the flight records of RAAF Darwin for that year were lost in Cyclone Tracy).

The flights were made for one or more of the following purposes:

Evacuation of refugees.

Transportation of Dr Santos, a mediator in the East Timor internal dispute.

Movements of food and medicine for the Red Cross.

Movement of people sponsored by the Red Cross or the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The flights in November 1979 were made for movement of food, medical supplies and people sponsored by the Red Cross or Department of Foreign Affairs.

Palm Island Aboriginal Reserve (Question No. 5323)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 9 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Was he or officers of his Department involved in any way in the treatment or monitoring of the outbreak of disease on the Palm Island Aboriginal Reserve (Queensland) in November and December 1 979; if not, why not; if so, what was the extent of that involvement.
  2. What liaison was there between him or his Department and (a) other Commonwealth Ministers or Departments and (b) Queensland Ministers or Departments.
  3. Is he able to supply any details on the outbreak of this disease and the (a) numbers and ages of those affected, (b) causes, symptoms, course and treatment and (c) numbers, names, designations and salaries of any Aboriginal health workers involved in its diagnosis, monitoring or treatment.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. The staff of my Department worked in close cooperation with the Queensland authorities in monitoring the outbreak of illness that occurred on Palm Island in November and December 1979.

The Commonwealth Health Laboratory located at the Townsville Hospital tested specimens and a member of its scientific staff visited Palm Island for the collection of samples. Testing was also carried out at Australian Reference laboratories and at overseas scientific institutions.

  1. In dealing with this outbreak, close co-operation existed and still exists between staff of my Department and the Queensland health authorities. My colleague, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, has also been advised in relation to this matter.
  2. No. Details of this nature may be obtainable from State Government sources in Queensland. However, I understand that this outbreak, the cause of which is still under investigation, was adequately controlled, and there were no deaths.

I also understand that Aboriginal health workers employed by the hospitals and the State Aboriginal Health Program, assisted throughout the epidemic. They were paid according to State Health Department wage scales. The further details requested are not available to my Department.

Aboriginal Health (Question No. 5324)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to paragraphs 9 1 and 92 of Chapter 4 (page 30) of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on Aboriginal Health.
  2. If so, has his Department accepted Dr L. R. Smith’s proposal and what progress had been made towards the collection of national Aboriginal health statistics as at 30 November 1979.
  3. How many officers of his Department were solely engaged in collection of these statistics.
  4. What was the name, designation and salary of these officers.
  5. Were any of these officers Aboriginal people.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. Dr Smith was funded from January 1 977 to June 1979 through a Health Services Research and Development Grant, to assess the current and potential availability of Aboriginal health data and to prepare a plan for the ongoing development of a national Aboriginal health statistics system.
  2. My Department accepts the need for Aboriginal health statistics to be developed on a national basis and is currently considering the establishment of a small section to undertake the task as envisaged by Dr Smith. In the interim one Departmental officer has been employed on the project for the past two years and some worthwhile progress has been made, particularly in the area of vital statistics.
  3. One.
  4. The officer concerned is a Project Officer (Class 8 ) current salary $19,896. Consistent with the ‘Public Service Board Guidelines For the Keeping of Personal Records on Staff in the A.P.S.’, I believe that for reasons of personal privacy the names of public servants should generally not be disclosed in answers to Parliamentary Questions.
  5. No.

Aboriginal Health (Question No. 5341)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to paragraph 96, Chapter 6, of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on Aboriginal Health.
  2. Has the Minister’s attention also been drawn to paragraph 100 of that report which states that the results of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs surveys understate the true position regarding the environmental deficiencies of nonmetropolitan Aboriginal communities.
  3. Has the Minister ordered further surveys by his Department with a view to obtaining both more accurate and more comprehensive information on each of those matters surveyed which are referred to in the report; if not, why not.
  4. If so, will the Minister make the results of those surveys publicly available.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. As pan of its regular collection of information on which its programs of aid are based the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is continually updating its information in respect of the housing, water, sanitation and power requirements of non-metropolitan Aboriginal communities.
  4. Summaries of the Department’s statistical information on Aboriginal communities are published from time to time in its Statistical Section Newsletters.

Aboriginal Land Rights: Tempe Downs Station (Question No. 5343)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister able to state what undertakings have been given to the Aboriginal people of the Tempe Downs Station in the Northern Territory regarding Aboriginal freehold title to that land by successive Governments since 1972.
  2. If so, who are the present owners of that station and what type of title do they hold.
  3. What was the date on which they obtained that title and what (a) Commonwealth Government agencies and (b) Northern Territory Government agencies have been involved in any negotiations regarding this land since 1972.
  4. What was the purchase price paid at the most recent sale of the station.
  5. Did any Aboriginal group or organisation make any formal or informal claim on this land; if so, by whom and when was that claim made.
  6. Has the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission ever begun any negotiations for the purchase of this station on behalf of the Aboriginal people of the area.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) I am not aware of any undertakings having been given regarding Aboriginal freehold title over Tempe Downs Station.
  2. The pastoral lease, which expires on 30 June 201 1, is held by Tempe Downs Pty Ltd.
  3. , (4), (5) and (6) For some years before 1972 and since, the Northern Territory Reserves Board negotiated with successive owners of Tempe Downs regarding the acquisition of an area around Kings Canyon for use as a park, and a further small area to protect an old historic building, McNamara’s Homestead.

Consideration was also being given early in 1972 to the possibility of the Government purchasing the lease for use as a park and also as an Aboriginal enterprise.

In August 1 973 Mr Bruce Breaden on behalf of the Luritja Land Association, asked the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to investigate the purchase of the station. On 9 November 1973 the Department informed Mr Breaden that the price being asked was considered excessive by a firm of pastoral consultants.

In early 1974 the executors of the estate of the previous owners sold the shares in Tempe Downs Pty Ltd. The acquisition by way of a transfer of shares obviated the need for Governmental approval. The purchase price is not known.

Since then the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission has examined several possibilities for providing land for Aboriginals at Tempe Downs, but negotiations with the lessees have to date been unsuccessful.

It was suggested by the Central Land Council in June last year that the Government should use its compulsory acquisition powers to acquire the Middleton Ponds pastoral lease which forms part of the Tempe Downs holding, for the Luritja people. In my reply to the Council I indicated that, under existing Government policy, pastoral leases would only be acquired by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission through the market place.

Consumer Price Index (Question No. 5387)

Mr Neil:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

When computing the consumer price index, is consideration given to evidence that when prices increase considerably on particular commodities such as beef and lamb, consumers do not buy so much of those commodities.

Mr Howard:
LP

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

The Consumer Price Index comprises 105 expenditure classes (eg beef and veal, lamb and mutton, fresh fruit). Each of these expenditure classes has a weight reflecting its relative importance in consumption in the period chosen as the weighting base period. The weights for expenditure classes remain fixed for about 5 years at a time. The weights are reviewed at about 5 yearly intervals and where necessary are changed to reflect up-to-date consumption patterns; in other words a new weighting base period is adopted. Thus in compiling the quarterly Consumer Price Index numbers no account is taken of short term changes in consumption. The last review of the CPI weights was completed in 1977 when weights reflecting consumption patterns in 1974-75 were introduced. The next review is underway now and is planned to be completed in 1982. This review will take account of changes in consumption patterns which have taken place since 1974-75 and in general the new weights will reflect consumption patterns in 1979-80.

Spectrum Analyser (Question No. 5461)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the function of the spectrum analyser to be purchased under contract number S448 referred to on page 60 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of12 February 1980.
  2. ) Where is the unit to be located.
  3. By what means are the tasks to be performed by the unit accomplished at present.
  4. What advantages will result from the purchase.
  5. 5 ) Who were the unsuccessful tenderers for the contract.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The ‘analyser, spectrum’ equipment purchased under contract number S448 is a spectrum analyser plug-in unit to enable a techtronix oscilloscope to function as a spectrum analyser. The spectrum analyser is used to carry out performance measurements and adjustments on airway facilities during installation.
  2. Adelaide.
  3. Present tasks are performed by borrowing another spectrum analyser or plug-in unit when available.
  4. Productivity will be improved because measurements and adjustments can be made when required during the installation activity rather than suffer delays while the spectrum analyser is being borrowed.
  5. The only other tenderer was Anglo American Aviation Co, based at Essendon airport.

Residone Herbicide (Question No. 5462)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

  1. To what use will the residone herbicide to be purchased under contract S79/ 151 referred to on page 60 of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 12 February 1980 be put.
  2. Where will the herbicide be used.
  3. 3 ) What is the composition of the herbicide.
  4. What precautions are to be taken in the storage and use of this herbicide.
  5. Is residone herbicide currently in use by the Department of Transport.
  6. Who were the unsuccessful tenders for this contract.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and ( 2 ) the herbicide residone will be used for the control of grass and weeds on the airport and at radio aids in Darwin.
  2. The common name of the herbicide is ‘Karbutilate’; the composition is Urea Carbamate Compound, M(3,3Dimethylureido)Phenyl Tert-Butyl Carbamate.
  3. The herbicide will be stored in a steel building and used by a two-man gang wearing gloves, overalls, boots and respirators.
  4. Yes.
  5. The only other quote was from Bennetts Farmers, Athol Park, South Australia.

Kenbi Aboriginal Land Claim (Question No. 5484)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 21 February 1980:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the Kenbi Aboriginal Land Claim document drawn up by Dr M. Brandl as researcher for the Kenbi claim on behalf of the Northern Land Council.
  2. Is it a fact as stated in that claim document that the presence of the Larrakia people was documented from at east as early as 1869.
  3. Is the Minister able to give details of each statement made by Government officials since 1 870 regarding the need to reserve land in the Darwin area for the Larrakia and Wagaidj peoples giving (a) the contents of each statement, (b) the date it was made and (c) the name and designation of the person making each statement.
  4. When did the Aboriginal people of Belyuen (Delissaville) first make a claim to any part of the area, who made the claim, to whom it was made and what was the area claimed.
  5. Did the Northern Territory Government gazette the Cox Peninsula as part of the larger Darwin town area; if so, when.
  6. Did this gazettal increase the larger Darwin town area by 3000 per cent.
  7. Is the larger Darwin town area now 3 times the area of Greater London.
  8. Can the Minister state what is the (a) population of greater London and (b) population of the Darwin town area.
  9. When did the Northern Land Council lodge the present land claim.
  10. 1 0 ) What is the area co vered by the present land claim.
  11. How many objections have been lodged against the claim and by whom were they lodged.
  12. 12) Do the Larrakia and other related Aboriginal groups use and occupy the area covered by the land claim for the gathering of bush food and hunting and fishing.
  13. How many traditional owners and other Aboriginal people are currently living within the claim area.
  14. Did the Interim Land Commissioner recommend that title to an Aboriginal sacred site known as Gundal which is situated within the Larrakeyah Army Barracks be granted to Aboriginal people in Darwin; if so, when.
  15. When were those Aboriginal people granted title and access to Gundal.
  16. How many Aboriginal burial sites in the Darwin area have been excavated for building purposes since 1869.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. , (2) and (3) Yes. I am not able to comment on the material in the Claim Book but understand that it is to be published by the Northern Land Council soon.
  2. I understand that a land claim over the Cox Peninsula was lodged with the Interim Northern Territory Land Commissioner in mid-1976. Following the appointment of Mr Justice Toohey as Aboriginal Land Commissioner, a claim under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was lodged on 22 March 1 979, on behalf of Aboriginal traditional owners by the Northern Land Council. The area was reported as being approximately 800 square kilometres.
  3. On 22 December 1978, the Administrator by regulation prescribed the Cox Peninsula, being adjacent to the town of Darwin, to be subject to the provisions of the Town Planning Act of the Northern Territory, as if it were part of the town of Darwin.
  4. , (7) and (8) I do not have this information.
  5. and (10) See (4) above.
  6. The following organisations or persons indicated an interest in the Cox Peninsula section of the Kenbi land claim hearings, but I do not know which wished to offer objections to the claim:

The Attorney-General for the Northern Territory

AOG Minerals Pty Ltd

Telecom Australia

AWR&CL Rannard

Westby Pty Ltd

Mr Max Baumber

Cox Peninsula Progress Association

Mr Martin B. Jacob

Greenex Pty Ltd

Commonwealth Deputy Crown Solicitor Darwin

MrS. W.Junos

Australian Fishing Industry Council

Mr Alfred H. Hooper

Darwin Sailing Club,

Mr John R. Withnall, Solicitor, for 56 persons and the Darwin Trailer Boat Club Incorporated.

  1. and (13) These are matters which would have been considered had the hearing of the Cox Peninsula section of the Kenbi land claim proceeded. On 20 December 1979, however, Mr Justice Toohey ruled that he was unable to proceed with a hearing of that pan of the claim because the land was pan of a town, as defined in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, and as such could not be claimed as unalienated Crown land under the Act.
  2. Yes. The Interim Land Commissioner recommended, on 29 August 1975, that, subject to the release of the land by the Department of Defence, a Special Purposes Lease in perpetuity be granted over the Goondal area to the Larrakia and another associated Aboriginal people.
  3. 15) No title has been granted. Goondal is located within a Defence Reserve. The Minister for Defence has advised me that he is unable to agree to release of the land because of Defence requirements in the Darwin area. My Department is at present exploring ways in which protection of Aboriginal sites at Goondal can best be achieved, and access to them by Aboriginals arranged.
  4. 1 6) I do not have this information.

Paterson’s Curse (Question No. 5491)

Mr FitzPatrick:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What progress has been made on the program of biological control of Paterson’s Curse.
  2. In which areas of the Electoral Division of Riverina is it intended to release insects.
Mr Adermann:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) The CSIRO has undertaken a series of tests on the insects to be used in the control program. They have been obtained from overseas, quarantine requirements have been met and the multiplication process is now underway.

It is hoped that the first of the four species being used will be ready for general distribution during 1980. It is possible that the remaining species could also be released during 1980 but because of their longer life cycle, there could be delays in building up sufficient numbers.

  1. Details regarding the location of sites in the Riverina for field release have not yet been determined. At the appropriate time these will be decided by consultation between the CSIRO and the NSW Department of Agriculture.

National Estate: Belle Vue Hotel (Question No. 5513)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 26 January 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the account of the demolition of the Belle Vue Hotel by the Queensland Government in the Annual Report of the Australian Heritage Commission for 1 978-79 (pages 5-6 ).
  2. If so, will the Government amend the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 to ensure that objections to the inclusion of a building or a place on the register of the National Estate can be resolved by an impartial body.
Mr Ellicott:
Minister for Home Affairs · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. See my answer to Question No. 5118 (Hansard, 21 February 1980, pages 328-329).

Fuel Conservation: Public Transport Systems (Question No. 5520)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government investigated measures which can be taken to improve public transport systems within Australia’s major capital cities as part of a fuel conservation program.
  2. Has the Government made specific proposals to the State Governments and offered specific funding for these projects; if so, what are the details of each project.
  3. Has the Government supported proposals to link Sydney’s rail extremities, including for example, linking (a) the Sutherland tine to the East Hills line, (b) the East Hills line to the Bankstown line and (c) the Regents Park line to the Lidcombe line; if so, what Commonwealth funds have been offered to the New South Wales Government in respect of each of these proposals.
  4. Are alternative proposals under consideration; if so, what are they.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The Commonwealth and the States are currently working together through the Australian Transport Advisory Council to investigate the scope for energy savings within urban public transport with particular attention to liquid petroleum fuels. These investigations cover such matters as the scope for greater use of rolling stock and vehicles in high density, commuter corridors and rationalisation of services generally.

In addition proposals submitted by the States in future under the 1 978-83 urban public transport program will have their energy implications clearly identified.

  1. Under the Commonwealth’s urban public transport program it is the responsibility of the States to propose projects for financial assistance. Projects supported by the Commonwealth under the current and previous urban public transport programs which have led to savings in liquid petroleum fuels include the commencement of the electrification of the Brisbane suburban railway network, the Cross River Rail Link in Brisbane, the Christie Downs railway extension in Adelaide and the provision of car, bus and train passenger interchanges in Brisbane and Perth.
  2. and (4) The New South Wales Government has not sought Commonwealth funding under the urban public transport programs for any proposals to link Sydney’s rail extremities.

Electrification of Sydney-Melbourne Rail Line (Question No. 5521)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the cost of the feasibility study on the electrification of the Sydney-Melbourne rail line.
  2. Has the Government received estimates of the actual cost of electrification of the line; if so, what have been the (a) estimates of the costs of the whole project and ( b) cost of that section of the line in New South Wales.
  3. What proportion of the estimated total cost of the actual project will the Commonwealth grant to the (a) New South Wales and (b) Victorian Government.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Consultants were recently engaged, at a cost of $350,000, to carry out preliminary investigations and planning in relation to possible electrification of the Sydney to Melbourne railway line.
  2. No firmly based estimates of cost are presently available. The provision of such estimates in relation to electrification and associated works is in fact a major element in the current investigations.
  3. The financial implications and other aspects of the electrification project are due to be considered by the Governments of the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victoria at the June 1 980 Premiers ‘Conference.

Defence Force: Conscription (Question No.5535)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

What specific administrative and legislative action needs to be taken by the Government to enable the conscription of males and females aged 18 years for the Defence services to be re-introduced.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

The Government has made it quite clear it has no plans to reintroduce any form of National Service. The administrative and legislative arrangements to give effect to any form of conscription would need to be determined in the light of the circumstances prevailing at thattime.

Employment of Apprentices (Question No. 5537)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) How many employers have taken advantage of the Government’s offer of a $1,000 bonus to employ additional apprentices.
  2. How many new apprentices have been employed under this scheme.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. and (2) It is not known at this stage how many employers have recruited additional apprentices as a result of the new CRAFT $1,000 employer cash rebate. This information will not be available until employers begin to lodge claims after 30 June 1980.

Petroleum Industry: Profits or Losses (Question No. 4094)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the 4th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum state in relation to the petroleum industry that vertically integrated industries acquire the ability to take profits or losses at the most convenient level of the integrated operations and this ability enables them to choose the country in which profit will be taken or loss sustained.
  2. If so, what action has the Government taken in response to this finding of the Royal Commission in relation to the petroleum industry in Australia, and with what results.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Section 136 of the Income Tax Assessment Act and special provisions of the comprehensive double taxation agreements between Australia and other countries are designed to protect the Australian revenue against this practice. These provisions empower the Commissioner of Taxation to levy income tax on the amount of taxable income which could be expected to accrue to the Australian affiliate if it were an independent entity dealing with its overseas affiliates at arm ‘s length.

The Commissioner of Taxation has advised me that the affairs of enterprises in Australia dealing with overseas affiliates are scrutinised by his officers having regard to the provisions outlined.

Heat Pumps (Question No. 5168)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Further to his predecessor’s answer to question No. 3844 (Hansard, 6 November 1979, page 2672), referring to the business reference Kompass and the Australian Institute of Refrigerating Air Conditioning and Heating and since not all readers of Hansard have access to Kompass, will he reconsider the original answer and provide a list of the firms in Australia which (a) market, (b) manufacture and (c) import heat pumps; if not, why not?
  2. Since Kompass does not provide details of brand names for heat pumps, will he provide this information; if not, why not?
  3. Is his access to information about heat pumps confined to Kompass and the Institute; if not, what are the other sources?
  4. Since the answer provided on 6 November 1979 only included 2 cross-references, without any supporting details, why did this question take more than 6 months to answer?
Mr Newman:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

I am only too pleased to provide replies to questions by honourable members which fall within areas of my responsibility. It is not my role however to provide answers to commercial enquiries which this would seem to be. The previous reply to question No. 3844 was an attempt to guide the honourable member to appropriate sources of the required information. I am advised that with the Inter-Library Loan service Kompass is very widely available.

Treasurer: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5187)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 November 1 979:

  1. In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition

Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented him since December 1975.

  1. On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The information sought would not normally be recorded in a form that would enable a listing of such occasions, if they had occurred, to be easily undertaken. However, I have no recollection of any such occasions.

Unnecessary X-rays (Question No. 5274)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 27 February 1979, which states that the Australian Radiation Laboratory is preparing figures on the extent of unnecessary X-rays performed in Australia.
  2. If so, have these figures been released and what are the results; if not, when will the results be available.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. A national survey of mean gonadal and bone marrow doses to the Australian population arising from the use of radiation for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in medicine, dentistry and chiropractic has just been completed. This study, which was carried out under the auspices of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC) was conducted by the Australian Radiation Laboratory in collaboration with State health authorities.
  2. ) Final results will be reported to the next meeting of the NH & MRC, which is scheduled for early June, 1 980.

Adverse Drug Effects (Question No. 5275)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 9 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Daily Telegraph of 1 1 October 1979 entitled ‘Dangers that lurk in drugs ordered by the doctor’ which states that probably less than 10 per cent of doctors have reported cases of adverse drug effects to his Department.
  2. If so, and in relation to adverse drug reactions, (a) what mechanisms has his Department developed to monitor the problems and what has been the response of the medical profession, (b) what are the names of drugs banned in Australia as a result of notifications and (c) how does his Department promulgate established information.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) Information on suspected adverse drug reactions is collected by my Department through a voluntary reporting system, using return postage-paid report forms supplied to medical practitioners, dentists, hospitals and pharmacists. The reports are fed into the Registry of Adverse Drug Reactions maintained by my Department.

All reports are studied by the Adverse Drug Reacions Advisory Committee, a Sub-Committee of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. Where necessary further details are sought from the reporting practitioner to enable an assessment to be made.

Immediate notification of any adverse effects is a condition of all approvals granted for clinical trials of new drugs and on marketing of new drugs by the firms concerned. A monitored release program has also been used to gather detailed information on some drugs in the early marketing stage.

It is difficult to accurately assess the response of the medical profession to the reporting scheme. Currently my Department is receiving an average of 225 reports per month. It is a fact that well-known reactions such as those referred to in the product information for a particular drug tend not to be reported.

  1. Drugs banned in Australia as a result of notifications are amidopyrine, intravenous preparations containing Xylitol, oxyphenisatin, adult formulations of erythromycin estolate, oral preparations containing bismuth subgallate and oral hormonal pregnancy tests.
  2. Many medical practitioners reporting a suspected adverse reaction are provided with a computer print-out of accumulated information on similar incidents. Significant case reports are published regularly in the Medical Journal of Australia and the Australian Prescriber. This latter publication is mailed to all doctors, dentists and pharmacists registered in Australia and contains a pre-paid report form by way of an insert.

A computer-generated cumulative summary of all reported adverse drug reactions is published and provided to medical practitioners. The last summary was distributed in 1 978 and it is anticipated that the next issue will be provided during 1 980. Important notices are mailed direct to the professions by way of circular letters as necessary.

Letters to the editors of journals or newspapers, or general media releases by the Chairman of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee or by my Department are used as appropriate. A quarterly summary of all reported adverse drug reactions is also provided for drug manufacturers.

Medical Insurance (Question No. 5283)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 9 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that some medical funds continue to cover medical expenses for contributors who have moved interstate.
  2. If so, what prevents a resident, say, in Canberra, from paying at a lower contribution rate to a fund registered in another State, for example, Tasmania.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. A resident of Canberra, any State, or the Northern Territory, may take out health insurance cover with a registered organisation in another State or Territory providing that the registered organisation is able to accept that person ‘s membership under its approved rules. For the purposes of the National Health Act, the Australian Capital Territory is deemed to be part of New South Wales. There are no health insurance organisations registered to operate only in the Northern Territory. However, the provisions of the National Health Act enables organisations, in accordance with their approved rules, to include the Northern Territory as part of the State in which the organisation is registered. Such organisations may operate agencies in the Northern Territory.

The only restriction under the health insurance legislation is that an organisation may only carry on business in the State or Territory in which it is registered to operate. An organisation is deemed under the National Health Act to ‘carry on business’ in a State or Territory if for the purposes of enrolling contributors and paying benefits it uses premises or the services of a servant or agent in that State or Territory. Subject to its rules, the acceptance to membership by a registered organisation of a resident of another State or Territory does not constitute a breach of this restriction.

Standing Committee on Carcinogenic Substances (Question No. 5284)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that the National Health and Medical Research Council Standing Committee on Carcinogenic Substances will meet only twice a year (unless members finance their own travel) because of limited funds.
  2. Given the wide-ranging terms of the committee’s field of inquiry can it seriously be expected to perform its functions as well as it would like under these circumstances.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. Expenditure on National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC) committees has been curtailed but it is the usual practice for most committees to meet only twice a year. The question of members of the Carcinogenic Substances Committee financing their own travel is not contemplated.
  2. The Committee should carry out its functions adequately in these circumstances. It is recognised, however, that a special meeting may be required if the Committee is required to urgently consider a particular problem.

Hospital Reporting (Question No. 5285)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to a new United States of America system for hospital uniform reporting (Regulation under section 19 of the Public Law, 95-142) which will require all participating hospitals to report cost related information in a prescribed uniform manner so as to obtain comparable cost and related data for reimbursement, effective cost and policy analysis, assessment of alternative reimbursement mechanisms and health planning.
  2. ) If so, would a similar scheme be helpful in Australia.
  3. Will he draw the Hospital Committee of Inquiry’s attention to US Public Law 95- 1 42, section 1 9.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Individual recognised hospitals in Australia report to their appropriate State health authorities. Currently, there are variations between States as to reporting procedures, and the Uniform Financial Procedures Committee of the Hospital and Allied Services Advisory Council has been working for some time to produce uniform reporting acceptable to all States.

At the Commonwealth level, some aggregate data is dealt with on a nationally uniform basis. Also, the Commonwealth receives financial and operating data on individual recognised hospitals as part of the Commonwealth/State hospital cost-sharing arrangements. Although individual hospitals may not record financial or statistical information in a nationally uniform manner, this information when supplied to the Commonwealth is in a standard format which enables it to be computer processed into general categories so as to provide broadly uniform financial data and statistics on a national basis for those general categories. Because the initial detailed data may not be exactly comparable comparisons on an individual hospital basis may generally not be satisfactory, but as stated above work is proceeding towards uniformity. No doubt the Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals will also be examining hospital data provision, collection, reporting and dissemination.

Health Expenditure (Question No. 5286)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

What was the total health expenditure in Australia by (a) the Commonwealth Government, (b) State and local governments and (c) private sources of finance for 1 978-79.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (a), (b) and (c) very preliminary estimates of health expenditure in Australia in 1978-79 are that total expenditure was approximately $7,950m. Outlays from Commonwealth Government sources were $2,901m. Data to enable estimates of expenditure by State and local government and private sources in 1978-79 to be made are not expected to become available for some months.

Recently revised estimates of expenditure on health in 1977-78 show that, of a (rounded) total of $7,293m, the Commonwealth Government provided $2,690m State and local governments $ 1 , 745m, and private sources $2, 857m.

Genetic Engineering (Question No. 5289)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports that many companies in the United States of America have applied for patents for new substances or techniques, developed through genetic engineering.
  2. Is he able to say whether there are appeals pending on a patent granted to (a) Upjohn Company for an antibiotic producing organism and (b) General Electric Company for oil-eating bacteria.
  3. Does Australian patent legislation allow for living organisms to be patented.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The more significant inventions which are the subject of patent applications in the United States are often the subject of corresponding patent applications in Australia. The Australian Patent Office has been receiving patent applications concerned with living organisms for many years and is well aware of the developments in this field.
  2. Investigations made by the Commissioner of Patents have revealed that an application for a patent by the Upjohn Company in respect of an invention utilising a microorganism for the production of an antibiotic, was accepted by the Australian Patent Office and subsequently a patent sealed. There are no actions pending in respect of the patent granted. The investigations did not reveal any Australian patent application by the General Electric Company concerned with oil-eating bacteria.
  3. The Australian Patent Legislation does not specifically exclude inventions concerned with living organisms from patent protection. The criteria for accepting an application relating to a living organism is therefore the same as for any other invention.

Portuguese Naval Vessels: Calls at Australian Ports (Question No. 5294)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

On what dates and for what purposes have Portuguese naval vessels called at Australian ports in the last six years?

Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. Our records indicate that Portuguese naval corvettes made the following visits to Australia in the last six years. All visits were to Darwin:

Alfonso Cerqueira- 1-5 October 1975; 18 November 1 975; 2 1 November 1 975 and 10 December 1 975.

Joao Roby-19-21 November 1975; 9 December 1975; 24 December 1975 to 6 January 1976; 16-19 January 1 976; 29-30 January 1 976 and 5-10 February 1 976.

Oliveira E Carmo- 11-14 January 1976; 29 January 1976 to 3 February 1976; 27 March 1976 to 5 April 1976; 28 April 1976 to 25 May 1976.

  1. The visits were for resupply, repair and maintenance purposes. In addition, on 18 November 1975 130 men from the Portuguese garrison at Atauro were landed and immediately repatriated to Portugal on a Portuguese aircraft. The same aircraft landed a replacement contingent in Darwin which was transported to Atauro on 2 1 November 1975.

Freedom of Information (Question No. 5314)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Administrative Review Council (ARC) subcommittee on freedom of information (Council ‘s 3rd Annual Report, clause 18, page 4) made any submission or recommendations to either the Council or the Government; if so, when.
  2. Will the Attorney-General give consideration to publication of that submission or those recommendations prior to debate in the Parliament on either the Freedom of Information Bill 1978 or any redrafted version of that Bill, following the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on that Bill.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Attorney has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes. Following the receipt of a report by the SubCommittee the Chairman of the Administrative Review Council wrote to me on 8 February 1980 setting out the views of the Council on a number of aspects of the Freedom of Information Bill 1978 and on certain recommendations made by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its report on Freedom of Information.
  2. I propose to table the Chairman’s letter after the Government has reached its conclusions on the Senate Committee’s report and before the Bill is debated in the Parliament.

Herbicides (Question No. 5329)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

In view of the public debate regarding the use of herbicides and possible links to birth defects, will he give consideration to releasing the report on the 10 year study on the use of 245T and the annual birth rate of babies born with severe brain and spinal cord deformities in New South Wales which was carried out by Dr Barbara Field and Professor Charles Kerr of the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine at Sydney University; if not, why not.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

Dr Field and Professor Kerr’s report was published in letter form on pages 1341 and 1342 of the Lancet of 23 June 1 979 under the title ‘ Herbicide Use and Incidence of NeuralTube Defects’.

Northern Land Council (Question No. 5338)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the purpose of the pending review by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs of the Northern Land Council ‘s activities.
  2. Which Departmental officers will carry out that review and what are their designations and salaries.
  3. When will the review commence and what will its duration be.
  4. Will the Minister table the report of the review.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable members question:

  1. 1 ) With the agreement of the Northern Land Council, a joint review is being conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the overall organisation and operations of the Council. A report will be prepared which will form the basis for discussions between officers of my Department and the Council aimed at increasing the effectiveness of all the Council’s operations.
  2. The review will be carried out jointly with officers of the Northern Land Council by the following officers of my Department:

Mr Patrick John O’Neill, Acting Assistant Director, $21,431

Mr Raymond John Hempel, Projects Officer, $ 1 9,896

Mr Jeffrey Richard de Souza, Project Control Officer, $18,347

  1. The review began on 4 February 1980 and should be completed within eight weeks.
  2. The review is an internal exercise and I do not propose to table the report.

Aboriginal Land Rights: Gurindji Tribe (Question No. 5344)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did Prime Minister Whitlam on 16 August 1975 hand over to Vincent Lingiari of the Gurindji tribe a lease for 1250 square miles of their traditional land with the words: Vincent Lingiari, I solemnly hand to you these deeds as proof in Australian Law that these lands belong to the Gurindji people and I put into your hands this piece of earth itself as a sign that we restore them to you and your children forever’.
  2. Did the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (the Hon. Ian Viner) publicly advise the Gurindji people in August 1 976 that the handing over of that lease was only the first step in their application for freehold title to their traditional land.
  3. Did the Northern Territory Administration issue a written notice to the Muramullan Gurindji Co. Pty Ltd on 1 October 1979 that the Northern Territory of Australia intended after 28 days of giving that notice to forfeit the above lease due to the Company’s failure to comply with certain conditions of the lease.
  4. If so, was the lease forfeited to the Northern Territory as announced.
  5. 5 ) If not, what legal proceedings or other negotiations are in progress on this matter.
  6. Is the Minister able to state whether the Northern Territory Administration (a) intends to continue with the matter of the lease forfeiture, (b) has granted any extension of time to the 28 day period referred to in the notice; if so, what is the current date set down for the lease forfeiture and (c) has issued similar notices to other Aboriginal-run or Europeanrun leasehold cattle stations; if so, which ones.
  7. Has the Minister, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or any Commonwealth agency under the Minister’s control had any discussions with the Northern Territory Administration over this matter.
  8. If so, who represented the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory and when and where did those discussions take place.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes. The lease area is 3279 square kilometres (or about 1265 square miles), and I understand that the words used by Mr Whitlam were: ‘Vincent Lingiari I solemnly hand to you these deeds as proof, in Australian law, that these lands belong to the Gurindji people and I put into your hands part of the earth itself as a sign that this land will be the possession of you and your children forever. ‘
  2. Yes. The Minister sent a telegram in August 1976 in which he indicated that the handing over of the lease was only the first step in making sure that the Gurindji obtain rights in that country and indicating that, with the passage of the Land Rights legislation, the Gurindji would be able to apply for freehold title to their traditional land.
  3. Yes. The notice issued to the Muramullan Gurindji Company Pty Ltd.
  4. No.
  5. None.

  6. (a) and (b) I am informed that an extension of time has been granted until 30 June 1980 during which specified works must be completed in order to satisfylease covenants.

    1. This is a matter for the Northern Territory Government. According to Press reports at the time, over 40 such notices have been issued, but I do not have details of the properties concerned.
  7. and (8) Yes. Officers of my Department in the Northern Territory have discussed the matter with officials of the Northern Territory Government to ensure that appropriate arrangements are made to see that the necessary works are carried out. Details of dates and places of discussions and of the officers involved are not available.

Defence Facilities at Derby (Question No. 5369)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

What facilities are to be provided at Derby WA for staging of ( a ) air reconnaissance and ( b ) strike aircraft.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

It is envisaged that the airfield works being planned for Derby, together with the use of transportable working and living accommodation, would enable the mounting of maritime and strike exercises and operations from the airfield.

Consumer Price Index (Question No. 5386)

Mr Neil:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. What was the local government rates and charges index number for each consumer price index since December 1 969, and what was the percentage increase for each q uarter over both the previous quarter and the corresponding quarter of the previous year.
  2. Are corresponding figures available for Sydney; if so, what are they.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The information sought by the honourable member is shown in the following table:

Telecommunications Equipment (Question No. 5396)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

What are the (a) total, and (b) unit production and distribution costs of (i) the Telecom executive desk portfolio, and (ii) the Telecom executive pocket planner.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

The Telecom executive desk portfolio and associated pocket planner were purchased as sets, and a separate unit cost for each item cannot be provided.

As notified in the Commonwealth Gazette of 18 September 1979, 10,000 sets were purchased at a total cost of $73,393 i.e. $7.34 a set.

Hospitals: Casualty and Prescription Services (Question No. 5415)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Is there an increasing demand in New South Wales hospitals for casualty and prescription services, following the latest changes to the Federal Government’s health benefits policy.
  2. If so, has he considered the necessity of allocating extra funds to the New South Wales Government in order to employ more doctors, nurses and pharmacists to meet increasing demands.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Health Commission of New South Wales is not able to state conclusively that there has been an increase in outpatient (casualty and prescription) services following the introduction of the latest changes to the health insurance arrangements (abolition of the 40 per cent Commonwealth benefit for those medical services with a Schedule fee of $20 or less) which became effective on 1 September 1979.
  2. No extra funds are being sought by New South Wales for additional services this year. The Commonwealth’s contribution to the public hospital system, pending the outcome of the Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals, will be at a level to maintain services at 1 978-79 levels with allowance for escalation.

Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders: Federal Funds (Question No. 5458)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to statements by the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Advancement that moneys returned by Queensland to the Federal Government had been allocated for health services and houses not wanted by indigenous Queenslanders or houses not able to be built without a continuing commitment of funds beyond one financial year because of seasonal restrictions on building at Mornington Island.
  2. If so, will the Minister report fully to the Parliament on these matters and the points of difference still outstanding between the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Queensland Government..
  3. Is the Queensland Government prepared to discuss and negotiate these issues in full, effective and acceptable consultation with the Aboriginal communities concerned.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2) and (3) My attention was drawn to statements by the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, in an interview broadcast on AM on 20 September 1979, in answer to questions about the underspending of grants made through my Department to the Queensland Government. Mr Porter said that ‘approval often comes through late in the year’ and the onset of the wet season could delay building programs in communities in north Queensland. He also referred to ‘general initiatives which we don’t accept in this State because we regard them as antipathetic to the indigenous people’s best interests’. The latter comments could not relate to funds provided through State Grants which are made to support programs proposed by Queensland Government Departments. There was significant underspending between 1975-76 and 1978-79 in State Grant programs administered by the Queensland Departments of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, Health and Education but I am not aware of any ‘points of difference still outstanding between the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Queensland Government’ in relation to this matter, though not all the unspent moneys have yet been repaid.

Tullamarine Airport: Waste water (Question No. 5490)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to state whether untreated overflow waste waters from Tullamarine Airport flow into a tributary of the Maribyrnong River.
  2. Is he also able to state whether this tributary runs through the Arundel Road area of Keilor where the Victorian Archaeological Survey is carrying out a painstaking excavation into the earliest known human occupation of Victoria.
  3. Can he say whether the overflow from Tullamarine is causing rapid erosion of the tributary’s banks and is threatening the integrity of the archaeological work.
  4. Will he investigate these matters urgently and report to the House.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No untreated overflow waste waters from Tullamarine airport flow into a tributary of the Maribyrnong River. Waste waters (sewage and sullage) from the terminal area are discharged to the MMBW sewer. Waste waters from the maintenance area pass through a sewage treatment plant before discharge to the Arundel Creek.
  2. It does.
  3. Some of the stormwater from Tullamarine is discharged to Arundel Creek. The nearest point of discharge to the archaeological area is approximately one kilometre upstream. A recent investigation by the Department of Housing and Construction established that this discharge is not causing rapid erosion of the banks of the creek, and that the erosion occurring is mainly caused by the natural drainage which pre-existed Melbourne Airport.
  4. The above answers have been obtained as the result of my investigation.

Birth Positions (Question No. 5494)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to 2 letters to the editor of the Lancet of 4 March 1978, pages 496-7, quoting evidence of controlled studies which suggest that recumbent confinement is a modern perversion for the convenience of the accouchement team, and not for the comfort or safety of the mother and child.
  2. Is he able to state whether the available medical and anthropological evidence favours the views that (a) the weight of the foetus is a safer force than uterine contractions, and, in the upright position, enhances their efficiency, and (b) labour in the upright position is shorter and more comfortable, requires drugs and forceps delivery less often and avoids the hazards of dorsal delivery and drugsideeffects.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. I am also aware of the relevant study by T. J. McManus and A. A. Calder which concluded that there was no need to change the conventional intrapartum nursing attitude and of these researchers’ rebuttal (Lancet 13 May 1978 ) of the letters referred to by the honourable member.
  2. No firm evidence has come forward to demonstrate that the upright position has any important influence on the efficiency or morbidity of labour.

Technological Change (Question No. 5507)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to press comments on a report commissioned by the United Kingdom Department of Industry from S.R.I. International (formerly Stanford Research Institute) on micro-electronics technology and the implications for the United Kingdom; if so, does the report indicate, among other things, that the United Kingdom is ahead of the rest of the world in public discussion of the subject.
  2. Will he urgently consider the introduction of an educational campaign to ensure that Australians are well informed on all aspects of the introduction and implementation of new technology.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of an article appearing in the Australian Financial Review on 27 November 1979 which discussed a report commissioned by the United Kingdom Department of Industry from S.R.I. International entitled Microprocessor Technology and Its Implications for the United Kingdom. I have also examined the report in question, which was released in July 1979.

The report suggests that the social and economic impacts of microelectronics will be at least as great (if not greater) than those of the automobile, aircraft or television. Hence it is not suprising that many nations, including most of the European Economic Community countries, have completed or are conducting similar studies relating to the impact of microelectronics, and the role of government in its development.

Technological change, whether due to microelectronics or any other technology, is a complex issue on which opinions can easily become polarised, and thereby it generates considerable public discussion. Recently microelectronics technology has received a great deal of public attention in the United Kingdom, but it is probably not meaningful to make comparisons between countries in relation to levels of public discussion.

  1. The process of technological change in Australia is currently under examination by the Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia which was established by this Government in December 1978. As the Committee is expected to report its findings within the next few months, including the experience of other countries in responding to technological change, it would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt the Committee’s report by considering an educational campaign in respect of new technology at this stage.

Meta-AMSA (Question No. 5552)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Can he state whether the drug Meta-AMSA has shown favourable results for cancer patients.
  2. Is the drug currently available in Australia; if not, and if it has shown favourable results, when will it be available for use in Australia.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Trials being conducted in the U.S.A. (under the sponsorship of the National Cancer Institute) indicate that MetaAMSA has some activity in acute leukaemias, and in a number of other cancers including ovary, gastric, head and neck, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and small cell carcinoma of the lung.
  2. Formal approval for the commencement of Australiawide trials to study the safety and efficacy of the drug in both acute leukaemia and certain solid tumors was granted on 3 March 1980.

Australian National Railways: Marree Operations (Question No. 5553)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Will regular rail services to Marree, S.A., continue on the existing standard guage track following completion of the Tarcoola to Alice Springs railway line by the Australian National Railways during 1980.
  2. When the line is completed, what railway operations will be carried out at Marree, and what employment opportunities will be available for ANR employees now stationed at Marree.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. Rail services will continue to Marree following completion of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs line but on a reduced scale, probably one train per week. Additional services will be provided if necessary, to handle large consignments of livestock or other traffic.
  2. Staff numbers at Marree will be adjusted in line with the reduced work load. Some employees will be transferred to the new Tarcoola-Alice Springs line and others will be deployed to offset staff shortages elsewhere. No employees will be retrenched.

Australian National Railways: Residences at Port Augusta (Question No. 5554)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 February 1980:

What progress has been made in negotiations between Australian National Railways and the South Australian Housing Trust regarding the possible disposal to the Trust of ANR residences at Port Augusta, S.A., and other centres.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The Australian National Railways (ANR) and the South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT) are examining the feasibility of transferring ANR houses and vacant land suitable for housing development at Port Augusta to the SAHT. Matters still to be resolved include the amount to be paid by the SAHT to ANR; the terms of payment; and an undertaking to make houses available to ANR employees. As a result, no firm commitments have been made at this stage.

The course adopted for transferring houses at centres other than Port Augusta will depend on the outcome of the Port Augusta exercise.

Defence Force: Pay Increases (Question No. 5560)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 March 1 980:

Were overdue payments recently made as a result of the Prime Minister’s efforts to those serving in the Royal Australian Navy; if so, will similar attention be given to the payment of flying pay increases awarded to air crew in the Royal Australian Air Force in October 1 979.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

I confirm that arrears in payment of Submarine Service Allowance to eligible members of the RAN were paid between 14 and 28 February, following receipt of the necessary statutory cover.

Similar statutory cover for the payment of increased flying and flight duties allowances to aircrew members of the three Services has been obtained and payment of the arrears is to be made on 1 3 March 1 980.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 5138)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

Is a person whose employer transfers his operation to another location, required to move to the new location or lose the right to receive unemployment benefits.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

It is a qualification for unemployment benefit that the Director-General of Social Services be satisfied that a claimant for benefit is willing to undertake paid work that, in the opinion of the Director-General, is suitable to be undertaken by the claimant.

If an employer transfers his operation to a different location an employee would not be refused unemployment benefit if he declined for good and sufficient reason to move to that location.

Timor (Question No. 5292)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

What Red Cross contributions has Australia made for Timor in the last five years.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The Australian Government has contributed a total of $3. 9m to Red Cross programs in Timor since 1975: contributions of $100,000 and $150,000 were provided to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on 18 September 1975 and 2 November 1975 for its programs in East and West Timor. The unspent balance of this grant- $83,000- was transferred to the Indonesian Red Cross (IRC) in October 1976 for its humanitarian programs in East Timor; a further gift of $250,000 to the IRC was announced by the Prime Minister during his visit to Indonesia in October 1976; an accountable grant of $250,000 was provided to the IRC in September 1978; relief materials to the value of $200,000 were made available to the IRC/ICRC joint relief program in August 1979; a decision to provide 2,500 tonnes of corn valued at $625,000 CIF, to the Indonesian Government for use in East Timor was announced on 14 September 1979; a further grant of $333,000 to the IRC/ICRC joint program, for the purchase in Australia of vitamin enriched biscuits and plastic sheeting was announced on 1 November 1 979; and a grant of $2m to the joint IRC/ICRC joint program was announced on 6 November 1 979.

The Australian Red Cross has also made a numberof contributions for humanitarian programs in East Timor. Details of these contributions would be available from the Australian Red Cross.

Defence Establishments: Civilian Employment (Question No. 5311)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

Further to the additional information on his 1979-80 Departmental estimates (to House of Representatives Estimates Committee A, dated 6 November 1979), what reduction in civilian employment will take place at each defence establishment in the Electoral Division of Melbourne Ports during 1979-80.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Australian Representation in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Question No.5360)

Mr Holding:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 9 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) How many persons are employed at the Australian Embassy in Pakistan, specifying in each case the classification and services performed.
  2. Does any one officer at the Embassy, apart from the Ambassador, have any responsibilities for the provision and servicing of Australian representation in Afghanistan; if so, what are those responsibilities.
  3. What is the extent of Australia’s (a) full time and (b) part time representation in Afghanistan.
  4. On how many occasions and for what duration has an Australian Embassy representative been present in Afghanistan for diplomatic performance in (a) 1977, (b) 1978 and (c) 1979.
  5. In each case who was the officer present and what was the purpose of his presence.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Persons employed at the Australian Embassy, Pakistan.

    1. AUSTRALIA-BASED STAFF: TOTAL 10

Ambassador

First Secretary- Promote Australia’s views with Foreign Ministry and other officials. Evaluate and review a range of issues of domestic and foreign policies for consideration in the formulation of Australia’s policies. Arrange contacts and appointments for and liaise with visiting Ministers, Members of Parliament and Government officials.

Second Secretary (Consular and Administrative)- Senior Administrative Officer and Consul.

Second Secretary (Development Assistance)- Administer aid projects in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Attache (Administration)- General administration and consular duties.

Senior Secretary- Ambassador’s secretary.

Stenographer- Stenographic, typing and registry duties.

Communicator- Communications and registry duties.

Defence Attache- Military Liaison and reporting duties.

Assistant to the Defence Attache- Administrative support to the Defence Attache.

  1. LOCALLY-ENGAGED STAFF: TOTAL 22

Accountant; Accounts Assistant; Caretaker/sweeper; Clerk, Accounts; Clerk, Registry; Clerk, Registry Assistant;

Clerk/Stenographer; Consular Assistant; Doorman Attendant; Driver, Head; Driver; Driver; Driver; Driver; Property Assistant; Receptionist/Telephonist; Sweeper; Maintenance Officer; Messenger, Head; Messenger; Office Superintendent; Colombo Plan Assistant.

  1. ) and (3) representation in Afghanistan.

In normal circumstances our Ambassador resident in Islamabad is also accredited to Kabul and consequently he and other officers of the Embassy in Islamabad made occasional visits to conduct business and to call on the various offices of the Government of Afghanistan. However, since the Soviet invasion on 27 December 1979 the Australian Government has not recognised the new regime in Kabul and therefore no visits have been made since that date.

  1. and ( 5) visits to Afghanistan.

Mr A. Patterson, Third Secretary. 7.1.77;1 1.1.77. To discuss training and aid matters.

Mr A. Adams, Second Secretary (C and A). 27.1.77-1.2.77. To arrange burial of Australian citizen.

Mr J. D. Petherbridge, Ambassador. 27.1.77;1.2.77. To host Australia Day reception in Kabul and to call on Government Ministers and Officials to assess political and other developments.

Col. W. Slocombe, Defence Attache. 28. 1 . 77-3.2.77. To report on military and political developments.

Mr K. Baker, First Secretary. 5.2.77;10.2.77. To report on political developments.

Mr B. Gorman, Second Secretary. 18.3.77;23.3.77. To discuss Australian aid and training with Afghan authorities.

Mr K. Baker, First Secretary. 2.4.77;1 1.4.77. To report on political developments in Afghanistan.

Mr J. D. Petherbridge, Ambassador. 27.4.77;1.5.77. To call on Government Officials and members of the Diplomatic Corps to assess current developments.

Mr C. Carting, Attache (admin.) 6.5.77-11.5.77. To deal with administrative and consular matters.

Col. W. Slocombe, Defence Attache. 27.5.77-3.6.77. Toreport on military and political developments.

Col. W. Slocombe, Defence Attache. 9.7.77- 1 8.7.77. To report on military and political developments.

Mr P. Gentry, Second Secretary (C and A) 29.7.77-4.8.77; Mr R. Kashi, Consul (Karachi) 29.7.77-4.8.77. To conduct consular and administrative matters.

Mr B. Gorman, Second Secretary. 1 9.8.77-24.8.77. To conduct aid and training business.

Mr J. D. Petherbridge, Ambassador. 9.9.77;18.9.77. To visit Officers of Foreign Ministry, presentation of Australian books to Kabul University. Official visit to Bamiyan, north of Kabul.

Mr B. Gorman, Second Secretary. 16.10.77;21.10.77. To conduct aid and training business.

Col. W. Slocombe, Defence Attache. 6.1 1.77-1 1.1 1.77. To report on military and political developments.

Mr P. Gentry, Second Secretary (C and A). 12.11.77-18.11.77. To conduct consular and administrative business.

W/O A. White, Assistant to Defence Attache. 12.1 1.77- 18.1 1.77. Familiarisation.

Mr J. D. Petherbridge, Ambassador. 18.11.77;26.11.77. Calls on Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government Officials and members of the Diplomatic Corps. Official visit to Kandahar.

Mr P. Henry, Attache (Admin.). 16.12.77-21.12.77. To conduct administrative and consular matters.

1978

Col. W. Slocombe, Defence Attache. 29. 1 . 78-2.2.78. To report on military and political developments.

Mr B. Gorman, Second Secretary. 14. 1.78;19. 1.78. To conduct aid and training matters.

Col. J. Church, Defence Attache (Designate). 12.3.78-16.3.78; Col. W. Slocombe, Defence Attache. 12.3.78- 16.3.78. To make initial and farewell calls respectively and to report on military and political developments.

Mr P. Gentry, Second Secretary (C and A). 1.3.78-7.3.78. To conduct consular and administrative business.

Mr K. Baker, First Secretary. 9.4.78;13.4.78. To report on political developments.

Mr J. D. Petherbridge, Ambassador. 24.4.78;3.5.78. This visit took place during the coup in which President Daoud was replaced by President Taraki. To assess current situation.

Mr J. D. Petherbridge, Ambassador. 3.7.78;10.7.78. Call on President Taraki, on Foreign Ministry Officials, Minister for Planning and Development, in order to assess political and other developments.

Col. J. Church, Defence Attache. 12.7.78-20.7.78. To report on military and political developments.

Mr K. Baker, First Secretary. 3.8.78;12.8.78. To report on political developments.

Mr P. Henry, Attache (Admin.). 25.8.78-3.9.78. To conduct administrative and consular matters.

Col. J. Church, Defence Attache. 2.10.78-12.10.78. To report on military and political developments.

Mr B. Gorman, Second Secretary. 22.10.78;26.10.78. To conduct aid and training matters.

Mr J. D. Petherbridge, Ambassador. 5.11.78;12.11.78. Calls on Officials of Foreign Ministry and Diplomats in order to assess current situation.

Mr P. Gentry, Second Secretary (C and A). 26.12.78- 31.12.78. To conduct consular and administrative business.

1979

Mrs S. Waters, Third Secretary. 30.1.79;5.2.79. To conduct aid and training matters.

Col. J. Church, Defence Attache. 6.2.79-13.2.79. To report on military and political developments.

Mrs S. ConanDavies, Second Secretary (C and A). 13.5.79- 17.5.79. To conduct consular and administrative business.

Mr S. Waters, Second Secretary. 28.5.79;2.6.79. To conduct aid and training matters.

Mr J. D. Petherbridge, Ambassador. 5.6.79;12.6.79. To call on Mr Hafizullah Amin as Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, and on Deputy Foreign Ministers, Mohammed Dost and Asadullah Amin, and other officials to assess political and other developments. (This visit was by air in view of problems of road travel.)

Mr P. McCready, First Secretary. 8.7.79;15.7.79. To report on political developments.

Col. J. Church, Defence Attache. 24.7.79-31.7.79. To report on military and political developments.

Mr S. Conan;Davies, Second Secretary (C and A). 25.9.79;30.9.79. Emergency visit in order to assist British Consul with consular cases, including that of Russ Shanks (shot in ambush outside Herat).

Col. J. Church, Defence Attache. 20. 1 1.79-25. 1 1.79. To report on military and political developments.

Mr S. Waters, First Secretary. 4.12.79;1 1. 12.79. To report on political developments.

Military Facilities in the Indian Ocean Area (Question No. 5365)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say if Australia was included in the recent tour by United States of American defence officials seeking additional military facilities in the Indian Ocean area.
  2. Was the Government informed of approaches by the United States to the Governments of (a) Kenya; (b) Oman; (c) Saudi Arabia; (d) Somalia; (e) Egypt; and (f) Israel on this matter.
  3. Is he able to say what facilities have been offered to the United States by each of these countries.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Australia was not included in the recent tour by United States defence officials seeking additional military facilities in the Indian Ocean area.
  2. The Government was informed of approaches by the United States to the Governments of Kenya, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Somalia on this matter.
  3. I am unable to say what facilities have been offered to the United States by each of these countries as they are subject to final negotiation between the United States and the countries concerned.

Human Rights in the Soviet Union (Question No. 5407)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

When will the Government make its reply to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled Human Rights in the Soviet Union, tabled on 8 November 1979.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The Government has not yet completed its examination of this important report and the various recommendations it contains. When consideration is complete, the Government will take an early opportunity to report to the Parliament. Meanwhile, the Government acknowledges that the report is a valuable and significant contribution to the continuing debate about human rights in the Soviet Union.

Towra Point, Botany Bay (Question No. 5444)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. Was the report of the Australian Littoral Society entitled An Investigation of Management Options for Towra Point, Botany Bay, received in April 1978, if so, has there been ample time for consideration of the report.
  2. Which of the enumerated options in the report has been accepted by the Government.
  3. What sums are to be allocated to ensure the preservation of this outstanding tidal wetland area in the heart of Sydney.
  4. Are additional measures proposed to preserve significant ecological areas of Towra Point not presently owned by the Commonwealth Government: if so, what measures are proposed.
Mr THOMSON:
Minister for Science and the Environment · LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND · NCP

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

  1. 1 ) The report was received in April 1978. In relation to the time available for consideration of the report see (2) below.
  2. ) The Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments have studied the Report and consideration is currently being given to future management arrangements for the area.
  3. and (4) See (2).

Taiwanese Fishing Activities in Australian Fishing Zone (Question No. 5498)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

In what ways will the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild be responsible for ensuring that all Taiwanese fishing activities in the Australian fishing zone are strictly in accordance with Australian laws and regulations, as indicated in his media statement of 2 November 1979 on Taiwanese access to the Australian 200 mile fishing zone.

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

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

I refer the honourable member to answers to questions 4839 and 4840 appearing in the House of Representatives Hansardon22 November 1979.

The obligations of both the Kailis Kaohsiung Fishing Company and the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild in respect of Taiwanese fishing operations in the Australian fishing zone are detailed in the Agreements which were tabled in the Parliament on 20 November 1 979.

New Caledonia (Question No. 5523)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. ) Can he state whether French policy in New Caledonia is explicitly to defer consideration of independence for 10 years in favour of a new reform plan.
  2. If so, can he further state if this reform plan has been explicitly rejected by the Melanesian political parties in New Caledonia precisely because it excludes the option of independence and continues the colonial status of New Caledonia.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Our understanding of French policy in New Caledonia is that while France is committed to a lengthy development plan- the first 10-year phase of which will cost $A1,450mthis commitment is not necessarily exclusive of consideration of independence. President Giscard D’Estaing reaffirmed France’s support for the plan during a visit he made to New Caledonia in July 1 979 but also implied that France would abide by the will of the majority of voters in the territory should they indicate preference for independence when he said ‘. . . this program will not be conceived nor imposed from afar. France will do nothing against the will of the people, democratically expressed. You have the real responsibility for your own future ‘.
  2. ) The development plan itself does not refer explicitly to independence. But in presenting it to the Territorial Assembly in Noumea in February 1979, Secretary of State for Overseas Territories Dijoud, asked the independentist parties publicly to defer independence ambitions for the next ten years. This was not accepted by those parties which have, accordingly, rejected the plan itself.

New Caledonia (Question No. 5524)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Can he state whether indigenous Melanesians constitute the largest single ethnic group in New Caledonia.
  2. Can he further state whether the overwhelming majority of Melanesians there want independence for New Caledonia and are agitating inside and outside New Caledonia for that goal.
  3. Is he able to say whether the majority which voted against independence in the New Caledonia elections of July 1979 is made up largely of recent arrivals, transient officials and members of the armed forces on their tour of duty.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. Indigenous Melanesians constitute 43.3 per cent (60,500) of the population; Europeans constitute 35.6 per cent (49,700); Wallisians, Tahitians, Vietnamese, Indonesians and other small ethnic groups constitute 21.1 per cent (29,400).
  2. Claims have been made by the Independence Front Party that more than 80 per cent of Melanesian voters voted in favour of independentist parties. Other estimates range down to 64 per cent. In the absence of voter enrolment by ethnic origin it is not possible to be precise. Some Melanesians are working for independence both inside and outside New Caledonia.
  3. 3 ) No. The electoral lists do not reveal such details.

New Caledonia (Question No. 5525)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports that, on the night of 6-7 January 1980, in the French Territory of New Caledonia, a Melanesian was shot dead by a French police officer.
  2. If so, is he able to state if this incident has been followed by a new wave of agitation, including the erection of road blocks, in favour of New Caledonian independence.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) On 9 January 1980 a French Police Inspector was suspended from duty and committed to custody in respect of the fatal shooting of a Melanesian on the night of 6-7 January 1980.
  2. Melanesian reaction was limited to the attendance of about 300 independentists at the funeral. They marched, without incident, several kilometres with the funeral cortege on 10 January.

Australian Troops in Rhodesia (Question No. 5551)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 February 1980:

Will Australian troops remain in Rhodesia in the period leading up to independence after the elections; if so, what involvement will they have and what safety precautions will be taken on their behalf.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

It was announced on 28 February by the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Acting Minister for Defence that the Australian Contingent to the Ceasefire Monitoring Force would leave the Patriotic Front assembly places and Rhodesian Security Force bases they were then monitoring, on 3 March. The contingent would continue its monitoring activities during the election polling period, but its withdrawal would take place before the election results were announced. The contingent would leave Rhodesia for Australia by RAAF aircraft on 5 March.

The Ministers also announced that in response to a request from the British Government, the Government had decided that the small team at Bindura would remain in Rhodesia until shortly before independence. The team of four led by Lieutenant Colonel Hubble, would take on more of a liaison role at regional level between elements of the Patriotic Front and the Rhodesian Security Forces. The Ministers said that reconciliation and integration of the formerly opposing forces would be an important task in the transitional period between the elections and independence.

The Ministers said that the Government decision had been made only after careful consideration had been given to the security of the team. The Government had received assurances that adequate security arrangements would be made.

The contingent, other than the remaining team of four, left Salisbury by air as planned on 5 March and have now arrived in Australia. The remaining team of four arrived in Australia on 14 March.

Defence Involvement in Tasmania (Question No. 5566)

Mr Hodgman:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 March 1 980:

In view of the Callaghan Report (Inquiry into the Structure of Industry and the Employment Situation in Tasmania) that defence involvement in Tasmania should be substantially increased and in view of my representations that increased air and sea surveillance of the waters adjacent to Tasmania is essential having regard to the international situation, will the Government give urgent consideration to (a) the Permanent basing in Tasmania of a Royal Australian Navy (RAN) destroyer to maintain surveillance of offshore waters, (b) the permanent basing of the Navy patrol boats in Tasmania to maintain surveillance of Tasmanian waters and proper protection of Australian fishing resources and (c) the permanent basing in Tasmania of a Royal Australian Air Force squadron to maintain adequate aerial surveillance of waters adjacent to Tasmania and extending out to the 200 mile limit.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Since the Callaghan Report was tabled in 1977 the Department of Defence has reviewed every six months the scope for increased defence activity in Tasmania. Each of those reviews has revealed no operational or training requirement for an increase. The most recent review was made in February 1980 and had special regard to recent changes in the international situation.

The RAAF regularly carries out civil surveillance flights over the seas adjacent to Tasmania and the RAN also carries out surface patrols in the area. These activities are part of the Government ‘s current civil surveillance program under the direction of the Department of Transport.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 March 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800319_reps_31_hor117/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant