House of Representatives
15 April 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

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

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1681

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pensions

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

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

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

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

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr James, Mr Lynch, Mr MacKellar, Mr MacKenzie and Mr Macphee.

Petitions received.

Taxation

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

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

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 per cent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are important mobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

  1. Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
  2. Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.
  3. Remove life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.
  4. Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of Life Insurance premiums up to a limit of $2,500.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burns, Mr Carlton, Mr Goodluck, Mr Hyde and Mr Jull.

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. by Mr Goodluck, Mr Hyde, Dr Klugman, Mr Ruddock and Mr Wilson.

Petitions received.

Pornographic Publications

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly and Mr Howard.

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 Ellicott and Mr Les McMahon.

Petitions received.

Australian Rum: Excise Duty

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Unemployment Benefits

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That currently discrimination in the provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy and/or sex;

That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals- in particular, against married women.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status.

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

Petition received.

North Queensland Air Services

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

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

  1. . That Ansett Airlines of Australia have proposed to the Commonwealth Government that it be permitted to operate an airline service between Townsville and Singapore via Darwin.
  2. That the North Queensland Airports Development Council has brought down a report in favour of the designation of a North Queensland airport as an international airport.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

  1. The Government approve of the Ansett proposal to operate a service between Townsville and Singapore via Darwin.
  2. The Government approve any other reasonable applications for the use of a North Queensland airport for charter and regional services to and from international destinations.
  3. The Government proceed with the designation of a North Queensland airport as an international airport without unreasonable delay.

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

Petition received.

Taxation

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

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

Taxpayers who incur child-care expenses in order to earn income should be able to have those expenses exempt from income taxation in the same way as other taxpayers can deduct business expenses from their assessable income.

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

Petition received.

Great Barrier Reef: Oil Exploration

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

The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth submits:

That off-shore oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region constitutes a serious threat to the richest and most varied living system on earth.

Your petitioners request that your Honourable House will:

  1. Prohibit oil exploration within the Great Barrier Reef Region;
  2. . Declare the entire Great Barrier Reef Region a Marine Park under the Federal Government’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1 975;
  3. Provide the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority with the staff and resources for effective management of the Region.

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

Petition received.

Human Rights Legislation

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 equal opponunity regarding Human Rights and fundamental freedoms is not enjoyed by all Australians irrespective of the race, colour, or ethnic origin of certain groups, particularly Aboriginal and Islander groups.

That the Human Rights Bill and the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill do not advance the causes of Australia’s oppressed Aboriginals and Islanders.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament affirms:

  1. . That all Australians regardless of race, colour or ethnic origin are equal before God and man. The Human Rights Bill and the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill as at present proposed do not create public confidence that they will preserve human rights or extend those rights to Australia’s oppressed racial and ethnic groups.
  2. That Parliament rejects or withdraws for re-drafting those Bills until the Government secures the confidence of Aboriginal and Islander communities and all ethnic groups that those Bills enhance the international and national commitments that the Commonwealth has undertaken.

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

Petition received.

Power Development: South West Tasmania

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:

We the undersigned request that the South West of Tasmania be preserved as a National Wilderness Park for the Australians of today and the Generations to follow.

We therefore request that the Hydro Electric Commission’s proposed Lower Gordon Franklin power development plans be rejected.

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

Petition received.

Religious Organisations

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the anti-social activities of certain organisations, in the main purporting to be religious and under foreign control, are causing increasing mental, physical and/or social distress to citizens throughout the Commonwealth of Australia.

Such adverse effects include drastic personality changes, alienation and severance from persons’ families and normal society, dispossession under undue influence of persons’ worldly assets, abandonment of sociallyuseful occupations or career education, mental disorientation, and a common requirement to surrender their labour with little or no pay, working unduly long hours fund-raising for the exclusive benefit of the organisations ‘ leaderships.

Furthermore, a disturbing number of our country’s youth have died prematurely in unsatisfactorily explained circumstances or have become so mentally or physically debilitated as to require hospitalisation or treatment following their involvement with the subject organisations commonly, but erroneously, described as ‘religious’ cults.

All evidence points to the fact that the subject organisations are commercial enterprises which, for the purpose of evading tax and other business obligations, have falsely assumed the status of ‘religions’ in order to take advantage of the blanket protections provided by Section 1 16 of the Australian Constitution.

It is your petitioners’ sincere belief that proliferation of such organisations unchecked with their personalitydisorientating and family-divisive practices and effects, represents a serious threat to the health, welfare, and peace of the whole community.

Notwithstanding the decision of the combined Australian Attorneys-General at their October 1979 meeting, that no special action should be taken by Government/s to curb undersirable activities of religious cults and that these should be dealt with under existing laws, such laws as would provide protection against the aforementioned malpractices do not appear to exist.

For this reason, the Government should proceed with all haste to investigate the widely-alleged malpractices of the subject organisations which include the Hare Krishnas, the Unification Church (Moonies), and such other groups as are the subject of complaints, preparatory to introducing appropriate legislation to curtail the said malpractices to ensure citizens ‘ continuing enjoyment of peace and harmony.

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

Petition received.

Telephone Services, Stockinbingal

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 Telecom Australia proposes to close down the Stockinbingal Manual Telephone Exchange and replace it with an Automatic Exchange Service that we believe will not give the same personal service that we are accustomed to.

The Stockinbingal Manual Exchange staff provides the following services apart from their normal duties:

  1. They are of great help to the elderly people of the town and district.
  2. The rural people rely on the Exhange staff in times of bushfires and floods.
  3. The district farmers also rely on the present staff at harvest time.
  4. The personal service that is provided by the local Exchange staff cannot be provided by the proposed Automatic Exchange.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

To avoid the inconvenience and the loss of the job opportunity that this Exchange has provided over the years for the people and district that this Manual Telephone Exchange be kept in its present form.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition 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 representative without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

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

Petition received.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act

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

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

That we express our unequivocal support for the substance of the stand taken by Mr Justice Staples on changes made to the industrial legislation enacted by the Australian Government.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act be amended to take account of criticism of changes introduced in 1979.

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

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 respectfully 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 principals 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 9th July to 3rd August, 1 980.

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

Petition received.

Citizens Band Radio

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

The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Australian Citizens Band Radio Service was authorised by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on the First of July, 1977 and the Government of Australia has consistently refused to grant certain conditions for the users of that service, to the service ‘s detriment. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

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

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

Petition received.

page 1684

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr ANTHONY:
Acting Prime Minister · Richmond · NCP/NP

– I inform the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) left Australia today to attend the Independence celebrations in Zimbabwe. I shall act as Prime Minister until Mr Fraser’s return.

page 1684

PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY: TRANSFER OF MR J. S. DUNN

Mr SPEAKER:

– I table a statement, with attached papers, relating to the transfer of Mr J.S.Dunn within the Parliamentary Library. The statement has been distributed to members in their offices. I do not propose to read the statement which, together with the papers, will be incorporated in Hansard.

The documents read as follows-

page 1685

STATEMENT BY MR SPEAKER: TRANSFER OF MR J. S. DUNN

The following statement is made for the information of honourable Members relating to the decision of the Parliamentary Librarian to transfer Mr James S. Dunn from the position of Director, Foreign Affairs Group, Legislative Research Service. Copies of certain official Parliamentary Library documents relating to the position of Mr Dunn are also attached. 15 April 1980.

The Librarian made the decision to transfer Mr Dunn. Likewise the Librarian made the decision to cancel the transfer. He was not influenced by any person in either decision nor did any person attempt to do so. Internal administration is his responsibility which is proper. Issues of policy and funding are for the Presiding Officers.

The Librarian had earlier discussed Mr Dunn with me in relation to Timor. Firstly, the committed attitude of Mr Dunn and whether its expression both nationally and internationally might be seen as inconsistent with the requirement of impartiality of the Library and whether Mr Dunn might be seen as using his position on the Library staff to influence policy.

Also, the Librarian had discussed with me the briefing of Mr Hayden which contained material obtained from O.N.A. He reported to me that Mr Dunn had breached two Library rules, namely, obtaining material from O.N.A. which was not published or free to be published, and disclosing the Member for whom the material was prepared.

Also the Librarian had informed me of the possibility of Mr Dunn being offered a University appointment in the context of granting him leave without pay.

On Wednesday 2nd April, 1980 the Librarian informed me in a written minute that he was transferring Mr Dunn to a position as a Special Projects Officer. He did not state the reasons. I accepted the transfer as an internal administrative decision.

On Tuesday 8th April, 1980 an inquiry was made to my office concerning the movement of Mr Dunn. Through a member of my staff I said that it was an internal decision of the Librarian.

On Wednesday 9th April, 1 980 at about 7.50 a.m. I was telephoned on behalf of the A.B.C. programme ‘A.M. ‘, with a request to speak on that programme commencing at 8.00 a.m. I suggested the President should be asked. The same person telephoned a few minutes after 8.00 a.m. and told me he could not contact the President. I agreed to speak because the matter had become a public issue and I believe that the Speaker should be completely open and frank about any matter concerning the Parliament and should not evade questions or exposure of issues.

I said unequivocally that the decision was made by the Librarian and that I had been informed by minute that it had occurred.

Several questions were asked of me in the form of, ‘Isn’t it true that . . .’, namely, that Mr Dunn had criticised both the ALP Government and the Liberal Government over Timor; an acknowledged expert and was very involved in the issue with very firm opinions. Also that Mr Dunn was involved in a controversy over a briefing of Mr Hayden including O.N.A. material. I agreed.

Then came a question to the effect, ‘were these the reasons for his being transferred?’ My reply commenced, ‘I should think that they were elements in the matter, I can’t say that they were the exclusive elements, nor can I say what other elements there were. But it is the responsibility of the Librarian to make sure that the chief of that section of the Library which is advising Members and Senators- from the House, three parties, in the Senate four parties plus an independent- that the Library is giving them the service that they ask for . . . ‘ I did think they were elements and it would have been wrong to deny that I thought so. The very nature of the reply, ‘I should think that they were elements’, makes it clear the decision was not mine. However when the programme was broadcast a couple of minutes later the questions preceding my answer were not broadcast. No pan of the interview before my answer commencing, ‘I should think that they were elements’, was broadcast not even the question immediately preceding that answer. Instead, Mr Cosser said, ‘The Federal Parliamentary Library is the joint responsibility of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and this morning the Speaker, Sir Billy Snedden, conceded that Mr Dunn’s criticism of Government policy over East Timor and his briefing of Mr Hayden on Afghanistan were elements in his removal. He’s talking to Warwick Adderley. ‘ What Mr Cosser said is not what I was asked. The matters which I thought were elements were: Mr Dunn ‘s involvement in the Timor issue, not his ‘criticism of Government policy over East Timor ‘. The inclusion of the O.N.A. sourced material in the brief not the, briefing of Mr Hayden on Afghanistan ‘.

On Tuesday 10th April the A.B.C. News reported, ‘Mr Dunn a former diplomat has been transferred to unspecified duties on orders of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sir Billy Snedden.’ Ron Sinclair in Canberra with the details: “The Parliamentary Librarian, Mr Harold Weir, said this morning that Mr Dunn’s transfer was ordered because he breached rules relating to the supply of information from the Office of National Assessment. But he also claims Mr. Dunn requested a transfer himself so that he could obtain a period of leave without pay. Sir Billy Snedden, however, has said he ordered Mr Dunn’s removal foi a number of reasons including the way in which he supplied the O.N.A. information to Mr Hayden on the Afghanistan crisis and his well known criticism of Government policy relating to East Timor. Mr Dunn this morning categorically denied he had made any request for leave without pay. Today’s lunch time meeting of 140 Library staff has been called by the biggest Public Service Union, the ACOA. They are discussing possible action to be taken in light of claims by both Government and Opposition MPs that Mr Dunn’s transfer has a political motive. In Canberra Ron Sinclair. “

The italicised portions of the statement are false.

I believe those persons responsible for broadcasting the A.M.’ program in not broadcasting the questions preceding my answer breached ordinary propriety. The tape on which the full interview was recorded has been destroyed. I was informed by the A.B.C. that the tape was destroyed 24 hours after its recording and that my request for the full tape was made one hour too late. The A.B.C. asserted that only one question was asked before my answer that it was the first question and that it had been written down before the interview, the text of this intended question (as provided by the A.B.C.) read, ‘But, has Mr Dunn been removed for his criticism of the Government’s policy over East Timor or his briefing of Mr Hayden over Afghanistan?’ It is clear where Mr Cosser ‘s text came from, i.e. the intended question- not what was actually said. If there had been only one question why was it not broadcast instead of Mr Cosser’s version.

I have been provided with the following documents by the Librarian, Mr Weir. They speak for themselves.

They are:

Throughout my service as Speaker I have acted always with complete impartiality in the conduct of my duties. I have been represented by the A.B.C. as acting partially. Further, Members of this House and of the Senate in criticising the transfer of Mr Dunn have attributed political motives to the transfer.

Two fundamental points flow from the incident:

Firstly impartiality does not mean interfering with the administration by the Head of a Parliamentary Department to direct him to act or to forego from acting in any particular manner relating to staff in order to please or alternatively to avoid displeasing persons who hold a particular point of view. Inevitably some decisions will displease some people. That displeasure does not rob the decision of its honesty of purpose, that is, the decision to treat the transfer and its subsequent cancellation as a matter of internal administration.

Secondly, if a Speaker is to be subject to the allegation of party prejudice whenever a controversy arises, then the Parliament will ultimately get that which it asserts namely, a prejudiced Speaker. This would be tragedy for our Parliamentary system.

This event emphasises the urgent need to adopt the Westminster convention of the independence of the Speaker. Then the Speaker will be seen to be impartial as well as being so.

Parliament of Australia

Department of the Parliamentary Library 14 April, 1980.

Mr Speaker

TRANSFER OF MR J. S. DUNN, LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SPECIALIST GRADE 5

(Local Designation: Director, Foreign Affairs Group) Department of the Parliamentary Library

Allegations of political motives in the transfer are quite wrong. You and Mr Dunn both know that I am of the opinion that Mr Dunn’s public activities and statements are inappropriate for a Parliamentary Officer in his position. At times I have asked him for explanations but I have not attempted to restrict his private activities, although his performance on duty and the duties he performs fall within the area of my responsibility.

H.G. Weir

Commonwealth Parliamentary Librarian

Depanment of the Parliamentary Library

MINUTE PAPER

Mr H. Weir (through Mr MacLean)

VISITING FELLOWSHIP AT UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE

Some weeks ago I raised with you the possibility of my receiving a visiting Fellowship at the University of Adelaide. Further discussion of this possibility has taken place, and I am able to report that the proposal now appears to be firming up. Only today I had a lengthy telephone discussion with the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Stranks, who informed me that my written response to the original proposal had been accepted by the administration, and was fully supported by him. The Vice-Chancellor expressed his full support for my nomination, and said that the matter would finally be resolved in about three or four weeks.

The Fellowship will carry the title Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Residence, and it will last for one year. Under the proposal the University will pay my normal salary, plus an allowance to help me meet extra expenses involved in going to Adelaide, and presumably being separated from my family for at least some of the time. The Vice-Chancellor suggested that the Fellowship might start at about the end of June or early July. During the twelve months’ period I will complete my book on East Timor, and deliver a number of lectures on general aspects of international relations.

If all goes well, I propose to apply for one year’s leave without pay. I have been informed by an officer of the appropriate division of the Public Service Board, that, in the case of a Public Service Department, leave without pay in these circumstances would come within the terms of section 72A of the Public Service Act, according to which such leave counts as service for all purposes except recreation leave. This would mean that I would continue to contribute to superannuation, and that the leave would count as service.

As you know, 1 have now been in the Public Service for more then twenty five years and, although I have been involved in research-related work for nearly all of that time, I have neither sought nor obtained leave without pay for such a purpose before. As my career moves into its last phase, I feel the need for rejuvenation, as well as an opportunity to be away from the pace and pressures of work in Parliament House. I suggest that the University of Adelaide will offer an appropriate environment for this purpose, as well as an opportunity to develop a deeper understanding among the teaching staff of important aspects of Australian Foreign Policy, that are often neglected in formal academic studies.

J. S. Dunn

Director

Foreign Affairs Group 13 March 1980

Note: Professor Stranks agreed that it would be appropriate to inform you of the position.

  1. C. Mr MACLEAN

Mr BRAY

Mr SIMMONS

Parliament of Australia

Department of the Parliamentary Library 8 April 1980

Dear Jim,

After our long discussion last Wednesday evening it was understood that you were to talk with me again on Monday 14 April 1980 about the kinds of Foreign Affairs projects in which you would like to engage as a ‘Special Projects Officer’. Because our discussion ranged over a wide area and also because you are on leave today and I shall be away on duty until next Monday it seems desirable to make my decisions clear to you in writing.

In response to wishes you have previously expressed to me and others you are to be freed from responsibilty for a Research Group administration and given time for in-depth research and writing.

You will be transferred from Position No. 76 in the Legislative Research Service to Position No. 120 and designated as a Special Projects Officer with effect from the commencement of business on Monday 14 April 1980. In that position you will be subject, as at present, to the supervision of the Senior Research Director, Position No. 129.

Your occupation of that position will remove what would otherwise have been an impediment within present policy to the granting of leave without pay for the one-year Fellowship at Adelaide University which you have told me you are keen to accept if it becomes available.

Until further notice you will be located in the presently vacant office which is situated within the working area allocated to the Statistics Group in the Parliamentary Annex.

In your new position you will, of course, continue to have access to the resources of the Library including serials on the distribution list and daily newspapers but not the communications from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The duties on which you are to be engaged will be discussed with you as we arranged. You will not undertake duties other than those assigned to you, without the concurrence of the Senior Research Director, and the completion of requests you already had in hand on 2 April 1980. Requests which formerly came to you as Director of the Foreign Affairs Group of the Legislative Research Service are to be handled by the Foreign Affairs Group of the Legislative Research Service according to the usual routine.

Yours sincerely,

  1. G. Weir

Commonwealth Parliamentary Librarian

Mr J. S. Dunn,

Legislative Research Service,

Parliament House,

Canberra

The Parliament of the Commonwealth

The Library

Canberra, A.C.T

To Mr Weir

page 1687

CORRECTION

The Title of my minute of 10 April should read Position No. 120” and not Position No. 76”. I regret the error. Would you kindly make the correction accordingly.

J. S. Dunn 11 April 1980

Department of the Parliamentary Library

page 1687

QUESTION

MINUTE PAPER

To Mr H. Weir,

Subject: Proposed transfer to Position No. 76

I have now read your letter of 8 April, 1980.I wish to inform you that I cannot accept the arrangements you have outlined in the letter, nor your presentation of some aspects of the discussion we had on Wednesday 2 April. It was my understanding that the proposal you had in mind would be discussed further on Monday 1 4 April, yet it is apparent from your letter that you chose to make a decision in the meantime, the consequences of which are clearly serious both for me and for the Parliamentary Library as a whole. I regret to say that I regard your move to make that decision without further negotiation as an abrogation of a verbal agreement. May I remind you that before I left you on 2 April, I had informed you that I was very disturbed at some aspects of the proposal to move me, but that in deference to you I wished to consider it seriously, and to have some days in which to reflect on it before a final decision was made. May I also say that such a procedure is common to most moves of this kind in the public service. It is certainly the case when a disciplinary action is involved, and you will recall that you repeatedly assured me that my transfer was not for disciplinary reasons, and had nothing to do with the issues of East Timor and the so-called ‘ONA Affair’.

When I returned from the coast on Tuesday evening my transfer had already become a subject of interest in the press some of whose representatives had already established to their satisfaction that it was being carried out for political reasons. Although you denied this at the time and have since continued to deny it, some of your own remarks during our discussion plus your description of the position I am listed to occupy, strongly suggest that there are political motives for my removal. May I recall, that in our discussion of the son of work the new position would entail, you stressed that I would not be permitted to write on East Timor. In your letter, you have specified that in this position, although I would continue to have access to the resources of the Library, I would not have access to the communications from the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is to me an extraordinary step to take, particularly as most communications from the Depart-‘ mem of Foreign Affairs are unclassified. It is also extraordinary because this arrangement was in fact negotiated by me some years ago on a personal basis, and at no stage has the Department suggested that it be terminated.

Your description of the duties of the position in the letter of 8 April differs substantially from the impression I gained at our earlier discussion. It is clear from your letter that I would have limited access, and this limitation, particularly to material from the Department of Foreign Affairs, would limit the scope of my research. Your letter implies that I would not have contact with members of parliament. In effect my long experience in the area of foreign affairs would be completely wasted, and would be irrelevant to the work of the research service, at a time when the Foreign Affairs Group is under greater pressure than ever before in its history.

Your letter also seriously misrepresents an important aspect of our discussion. In your second paragraph you say that I am to be free from my present responsibilities in response to wishes I had previously expressed to you and others. This is simply untrue. You raised this very matter during our discussion, and I emphatically informed you that I was quite happy with my present position and was content to remain here. I also informed you that at no stage had I hinted that I would like to be replaced as director of the Foreign Affairs Group. What I have said in the past is that all specialists in the Research Service could benefit from a break in their work here. What I envisaged, and indeed proposed, was that officers of this Group from time to time be given the opportunity to spend some months, or perhaps one year, in the Department of Foreign Affairs, or in a university, in order to broaden their experience in foreign affairs work. As you are aware, I am the only officer of this group to have served in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have placed on record my belief that our specialists should develop detailed knowledge of the working of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and of diplomacy in general. Again, however, I must restate the fact that I am quite happy in my present position and I have no wish to be relieved of my responsibilities. Your suggestion that this is not the case is therefore grossly inaccurate.

As for the question of my obtaining a fellowship at the University of Adelaide, as I repeatedly explained to you, a formal offer has not yet been made, and therefore it is not appropriate that this issue be raised at this stage. May I also remind you that at our discussion I expressed my regret that you felt it necessary to remove officers from their positions in the event of their going on leave without pay for a period of one year. You said you favoured the idea of fellowships and other forms of study leave which would be of benefit to the Library, yet how can this benefit be applied if the officer concerned is not able to return to his post? At our discussion, I did say that if it were necessary for me to vacate this position, why could I not retain it until I left for Adelaide.

It is hardly necessary to say that the events since last Wednesday have caused me and my family considerable distress. I believe that had this matter been handled differently such a situation might never have arisen. What has in fact happened, and emerged from public discussion of this issue, has raised important matters of principle. I therefore wish to remain in my present post, and to serve the Parliament as I have done in the past. If I am in fact offered a fellowship at the University of Adelaide, we will then have an opportunity to renegotiate the circumstances under which I might obtain leave without pay from this Department.

  1. S. Dunn,

Director,

Foreign Affairs Group 10 April 1980

Parliament of Australia

Department of the Parliamentary Library 14 April 1980

Confidential

Mr Speaker.

MR J. S. DUNN

Reasons for transfer proposal

  1. On 2 April 1980,I sent you a ‘Confidential-For Information’ statement about two matters (Document A1 enclosed). The first of those matters simply informed you that Mr Dunn would be transferred to a Special Duties position; it gave no reason for the transfer.
  2. On 6 March 1980,I sent you a note on statements made in Parliament the previous day about information alleged to have been given to the Research Service by Officers of the Office of National Assessments (Document B1 enclosed). In that statement I said that ‘use is made only of information which has been published or is free to be published’. I also said that ‘ I personally regard it as improper for any officer of this Department to seek information from any source when that information cannot be published. Furthermore, the name of a client for whom any information is required should not be revealed’.
  3. The decision to transfer Mr Dunn to Special Duties was not related to any political matter, although, as set out in Document C1 (enclosed), I have been concerned for a long period of time about Mr Dunn’s apparent lack of objectivity in his work. In Document C1 dated 19 November 1979, I said that I was regarding the matter as a problem of training and supervision and I have continued to adopt that attitude.
  4. Also, for your information, I enclose a copy of the minute which I signed this morning instructing that Mr Dunn would not be transferred today to the Special Duties position (Document D1). The reason for the original decision to transfer Mr Dunn was as set out in my letter to him on 8 April 1980, which was in response to Mr Dunn’s minute to me of 13 March 1980- both of these documents have already been sent to you.
  5. In media discussions during the last few days, reference has been made to a draft Code of Conduct which is presently being considered by staff. A copy of that draft code is enclosed (Document E 1 ). The date of issue of that document followed a series of discussions which had been held by the Principal Officers of the Department since at least 18 September 1979 (see Document F1 enclosed). The draft issued last week was drawn up by senior officers of the Legislative Research Service and drew heavily on guidelines recently issued by the Public Service Board for the conduct of the Public Service.

A similar communication has been sent to Mr President.

H.G. Weir

Commonwealth Parliamentary Librarian

A 1

Parliament of Australia

Department of the Parliamentary Library 2 April 1980

Confidential

Mr Speaker

FOR INFORMATION

This evening I propose to tell Mr J. S. Dunn that with effect from Monday 14 April, he will be transferred from his position as Director, Foreign Affairs Group, Legislative Research Service to special duties within the Department of the Parliamentary Library.

In his new duties Mr Dunn will be answerable to the Senior Research Director who will control projects in which Mr Dunn will be engaged.

Further changes involving the Defence Group of the Legislative Research Service will be made known and implemented at a later stage.

I have suggested to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Andrew Peacock, M.P., that the Australian Government could provide a Parliamentary Library and expert advice in setting up a Legislative Research Service for the new Parliament in Zimbabwe. Because of Australia ‘s involvement in processes leading up to the formation of the new Parliament this could be an appropriate gesture from Australia.

A similar communication has been sent to Mr President.

  1. . Noted I take it this is an internal organisational decision.
  2. A good suggestion. B.M.S. 2.4.80

H.G.Weir

Commonwealth Parliamentary Librarian

B 1

Parliament of Australia

Department of the Parliamentary Library 6 March 1980

Mr Speaker

INFORMATION ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE RESEARCH SERVICE BY OFFICERS OF THE OFFICE OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENT

Further to the statements in the House yesterday and subsequent references in the media I have called for a written report as to the details from the standpoint of this Department.

In response to inquiries from the media I have said that in the Parliamentary Library and Research Service ‘use is made only of information which has been published or is free to be published’. That policy is made perfectly clear in the attached booklet (page 7, middle paragraph), a copy of which was sent to all Senators and Members at the beginning of the 1 979 Budget session. The policy is not new- it has applied ever since the Research Service was started.

I personally regard it as improper for any officer of this Department to seek information from any source when that information cannot be published. Furthermore, the name of a client for whom any information is required should not be revealed.

I have written in similar terms to Mr President.

Seen B.M.S. 6.3.80

  1. G. Weir

Commonwealth Parliamentary Librarian

C1

Parliament of Australia

Department of the Parliamentary Library 19 November 1979

Mr President

For your information I attach an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 November 1979. It criticises a paper written by Mr James Dunn, the Director of the Foreign Affairs Group of the Legislative Research Service, and suggests that such papers have ‘the imprimatur of Parliament’ and should be disinterested, but claims that the paper misleads, its statements are arguable and complicates relations with Indonesia and the East Timorese Welfare Program.

My concern about Mr Dunn’s apparent lack of objectivity is known to you and has been discussed with him by the Senior Research Director. At this stage I am treating the problem as one of training and supervision.

My immediate concern is that Peter Hastings ‘ article in the Sydney Morning Herald could not have been written if Mr Uren, M.P., had not tabled the paper in the House.

I have previously expressed my concern about that departure from the convention essential to Research Service operations, that is its anonymity. When papers are provided in response to specific requests the Research Service should not be quoted; if a client wishes to make public the contents, it should be done in his own name. This convention applies to the release of Research Service papers to the Press, as well as to references to them in Parliament.

For information only.

I have also written in these terms to the Speaker.

H.G.Weir

Commonwealth Parliamentary Librarian

D 1

14 April 1980

MrT. W.Lawton

Acting Assistant Secretary (Operations) c.c. Mr Maclean

Mr Simons

Mr Bray

STAFF

Mr J. S. Dunn; Legislative Research Specialist Grade5

Position No. 76

Would you please inform Mr J. S. Dunn that I have decided not to proceed with his transfer today to Position No. 120 (‘Special Projects Officer’).

H.G.Weir

Commonwealth Parliamentary Librarian

E 1

Parliament of Australia

Department of the Parliamentary Library

All Members of Staff

Department of the Parliamentary Library

CODE OF CONDUCT

On 14 March 1980 the Office of the Public Service Board issued PSB Circular No. 1980/6 entitled ‘Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private InterestImplementation of Report’. This document contained the recommendations of the Bowen Committee set up in 1 978.

Included in these recommendations is a ‘Code of Conduct’, consisting of ten points, and a copy of this proposed Code is attached.

As this Code, for the Public Service generally, has been issued now, it seems to be an appropriate moment for this Department to issue a Code of Conduct of its own tailored, however, to the situation that applies in a Department of this Parliament.

While visiting the US Congressional Research Service last year, I found that a code had recently been adopted there although it had much wider application than the proposal for our purposes. It was particularly concerned with matters which are not so relevant here.

The draft Code of Conduct for the Department of the Parliamentary Library is attached for discussion. The existence of such a Code is a pre-supposition of the Management Review. I should like to have your comments and suggestions please by Tuesday 22 April 1 980.

H.G.Weir

Parliamentary Librarian 8 April 1980

Department of the Parliamentary Library

CODE OF CONDUCT

General

The staff of the Department of the Parliamentary Library are employed under the Public Service Act and are subject to the provisions of the Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Regulations. They should also be aware of the Draft Guidelines for Public Servants. In the performance of their duties, the staff are ultimately responsible to the Permanent Head of the Department.

The duty of the staff is to serve the needs of the elected Senators and Members of Parliament and its Committees by the provision of information facilities and research services. The loyalty of staff as officers of a Parliamentary Department must be to the Parliament. All members of Parliament must be assured of impartial courteous and efficient service without consideration of personal or political affiliation.

Provision of Information

At Member’s Request

Staff, in performing their duties, should seek, within the framework of Departmental Policies and procedures, to meet the needs of their clients as their clients perceive them. They should not seek to initiate client requests, nor to seek to educate clients to a particular point of view, nor allow personal convictions to determine the type of response.

By Appropriate Staff Member

Staff should ensure that the Members’ information and research requests are handled by the most appropriate staff member or section.

Confidentiality Aspects

Staff should at all times maintain complete confidentiality in respect of clients ‘ requests.

In turn, the-conventions of the Department discourage clients from attributing material or opinions to the Legislative Research Service particularly when such answers have been tailored to meet specific requirements.

Impartiality and Balance

Clients should always be able to have complete confidence in the impartiality and balance of the services they receive from staff.

Published or Publishable

Information given to clients by staff must be either published material or material that is free to be published. The sources of information should always be quoted. Confidential information should never form part of a response.

Activities of Staff

Public and/or Political

Public activities of staff should not be such as to disturb client confidence. Staff, as citizens, have the right to participate in the political life of the community, but should be aware that the acceptance of public office in a political party or active involvement in party political causes could affect clients’ perception of the Department as an impartial information and research service. Public political activities should be restricted if these could affect the Department’s reputation.

Public comment on issues

Public comment by members of staff on current issues could alienate some of the Department’s clients. Where such public comment is felt by a staff member to be inescapable, it should be made clear that the views expressed are personal and in no way associated with the Department, nor with the official position within the Department of that staff member.

Partisan Political Viewpoint

When on duty members of staff should not by word or by display of material express a partisan political viewpoint.

Publication of Articles Written

Members of staff who wish to write articles for publication in learned or other journals are encouraged to do so but as a general rule such articles should be written outside working hours and the resources of the Department are not to be used except with the express permission of the Permanent Head. Regulations do not permit acceptance of a fee for such publications without official approval. If the place of work is given, there should be a disclaimer that the views expressed are those of the author and not the Department. Positions held should be described accurately.

Professional Activities

Professional activities of staff which enhance efficiency and update skills are encouraged, but these should not be allowed to cause a conflict of interests. In the case of conflict the interests of the Department should come first.

Professional Organisations

Staff are encouraged to join professional organisations represented in the Department but in the event of industrial action should have due regard to their loyalty to the Parliament and the necessity to maintain an impartial political stance in the perception of their clients.

Staff Relationships with Clients

Members not to be lobbied

Staff, in accordance with the prescribed regulations, should not use their proximity to Members of Parliament to lobby for a particular political or personal cause nor seek to involve Members in Departmental matters.

Staff and the Media

Members of staff must always safeguard the confidentiality and interests of the Department’s clients in any relationships with the Press. No staff may comment to the Press on matters affecting the Department.

Attachment to PSB Circular No. 1 980/6

GUIDELINES CONCERNING THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOWEN COMMITTEE

Code of Conduct

  1. The Code of Conduct proposed by the Bowen Committee consists of ten principles to promote the avoidance of conflicts of interest, pecuniary or otherwise, and provide a basis for their resolution where necessary. The Government has endorsed the Code in respect of Ministers of State and their staff, members of the Defence Forces, public servants and statutory office-holders. The principles are:

    1. 1 ) An office-holder should perform the duties of his office impartially, uninfluenced by fear or favour.
    2. An office-holder should be frank and honest in official dealings with colleagues.
    3. An office-holder should avoid situations in which his private interest, whether pecuniary or otherwise, conflicts or might reasonably be thought to conflict with his public duty.
    4. When an office-holder possesses, directly or indirectly, an interest which conflicts or might reasonably be thought to conflict with his public duty, or improperly to influence his conduct in the discharge of his responsibilities in respect of some matter with which he is concerned, he should disclose that interest according to the prescribed procedures. Should circumstances change after an initial disclosure has been made, so that new or additional facts become material, the office-holder should disclose the further information.
    5. When the interests of members of his immediate family are involved, the office-holder should disclose those interests, to the extent that they are known to him.
    6. When an office-holder possesses an interest which conflicts or might reasonably be thought to conflict with the duties of his office and such interest is not prescribed as a qualification for that office, he should forthwith divest himself of that interest, secure his removal from the duties in question, or obtain the authorisation of his superior or colleagues to continue to discharge the duties.
    7. 7 ) An office-holder should not use information obtained in the course of official duties to gain directly or indirectly a pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person.
    8. An office-holder should not:
    1. solicit or accept from any person any remuneration or benefit for the discharge of the duties of his office over and above the official remuneration;
    2. solicit or accept any benefit, advantage or promise of future advantage whether for himself, his immediate family or any business concern or trust with which he is associated from persons who are in, or seek to be in, any contractual or special relationship with government;

    3. except as may be permitted under the rules applicable to his office, accept any gift, hospitality or concessional travel offered in connection with the discharge of the duties of his office.

    4. An office-holder should be scrupulous in his use of public property and services, and should not permit their misuse by other persons.
    5. An office-holder should not allow the pursuit of his private interest to interfere with the proper discharge of his public duties.

  2. The Code emphasises the importance of self-regulation in matters of conflict of interest. The onus is on the individual staff member to be alert to any actual or potential conflict of interest, pecuniary or otherwise, and take steps to neutralise it. Failure to observe the principles set out in the Code may constitute misconduct and so may give rise to disciplinary action under the Public Service Act.

Department of the Parliamentary Library

1974/57

MINUTE PAPER

Note for File

For sometime I have been concerned at the evidence that there is a need for a code of ethics and/or professional conduct in this Department. Various statements on the subject have been collected and during my recent overseas study tour I discussed the matter of professional conduct of Parliamentary Officers’ with a number of people in the Parliamentary Service. In particular, the recent Act was accepted as definitive in Washington, D C.

It is clear that the indiscretions of some members of our staff, newspaper publicity in August 1 979 about a research paper prepared by the F.I.T.D. Group and other matters have caused some doubts as to the integrity and political objectivity of the Department as a whole.

There are no sanctions which can be applied against people whose behaviour is questionable in terms of professional practice and while it is true that careful screening at the point of recruitment may prevent later indiscretions this is no solution to the indiscretions of permanent officers already in the Service.

Today I have told Mr MacLean, Mr Lawton and Mr Brudenall of my concern about this matter and my belief that the time has come for us to provide a statement of acceptable practice and ethics in this Department. This should at least provide the guidelines and be useful in recruitment procedures. It could also demonstrate to others our awareness of the need for desirable standards.

I have suggested that the best way to handle this may be to set up a working party within the Department to study the matter and to consider the statements of practices and ethics put forward by professional associations and to consider the special circumstances particularly those relating to political objectivity, which should apply in a Department such as this.

I should like the Presiding Officers to know that such a Committee has been set up.

  1. G. WEIR

Parliamentary Librarian 18 September 1979

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker, I understand that leave will be granted after Question Time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Leave has not been granted. I will call the item later.

page 1692

FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Notice of Motion

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-I give notice that at the next sitting I shall move:

That this House, noting with concern (a) the level of income which companies earned in Australia and paid overseas has risen sharply and (b) the deficiency of statistics on foreign investment in Australia, calls on the Government to halt the growing sell-out of Australian assets to foreigners by taking decisions not to allow foreign take-overs of Australian companies in the pharmaceutical and other industries.

page 1692

OLYMPIC GAMES

Notice of Motion

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

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

That this House, noting that in 1936 the American Olympic Committee was the only Olympic body of a major country even to be seriously concerned at the consequences of support for the Nazi system through the Berlin Olympics, records its appreciation of the leadership given to Australia, the world and freedom-loving people everywhere through the courageous decision of the American Olympic Federation taken at the weekend.

page 1692

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1692

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I refer to the fact, as revealed in the National Times last weekend, that an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation officer was sent to Israel to liaise with MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service. Is this not highly classified information? Will the Minister guarantee that the current ASIO investigation of the Office of National Assessments will be extended to establish who revealed this secret information to the National Times?

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

– I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to the honourable member, but I will refer the question to my colleague the Attorney-General and have him answer it.

page 1692

QUESTION

IRAN

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Did the Minister for Foreign Affairs say yesterday that, in the present circumstances, the Government considered that there was a strong case for retaining a residual presence in Tehran? What has the Australian mission in Tehran done to secure the release of the American hostages, or has its role been merely to observe events? In the future, while the mission remains in Tehran, will it actively seek the release of the hostages?

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

-I indicated in a statement yesterday that it was the strong view of the Government that there was a role to play not only in presenting views, or indeed protests if one likes, to the Iranian authorities but also in reporting accurately on what is transpiring in Tehran. That is the strong view of myself and of the Government, and I said so yesterday and previously.

The honourable member rightly asks: ‘What has the ambassador or charge-d ‘affaires been doing?’ Apart from reports that are made regularly to me and to the Government, there have been a number of visits in association with other ambassadors and charges-d ‘affaires to Iranian authorities, protesting about the continued holding of the American hostages. As recently as last week our charge-d ‘affaires, in association with others in a deputation, called on the Foreign Minister to hear and also to give views on the hostage situation. This week, in association with others, he will be calling on the President to do the same thing. Australia, not only publicly and through the United Nations but also diplomatically, will be standing strongly by the United States and, at least for the time being, utilising the presence in Tehran in that way.

page 1692

QUESTION

MANPOWER PROGRAMS

Mr YOUNG:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs: Is it a fact that his Department expects to spend $15m less than the $67.9m allocated to the National Employment and Training System this financial year? Is it also a fact that payments under the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme are expected to fall $10m short of the $54.3 budgeted? Will the Minister now agree that these two key manpower programs are failing to train sufficient skilled workers and tradesmen to cope with current demand? Does the Government intend to import even more skilled workers to make up the shortfall, thereby denying jobs to thousands of unemployed Australians?

Mr VINER:
LP

– There will be an underspending of the amount of the appropriation provided in this year’s Budget. The estimates made at the time of the compilation of the Budget were, of course, the best estimates based on the experience of the Department. Both these programsNEAT and CRAFT- are dependent upon employers providing the opportunities for the training and for the apprenticeships. They are as heavily dependent on employer demand as on the supply of people looking for the positions. I inform the House that overall I expect that about 200,000 persons will be assisted under the Government’s manpower programs, which matches the experience we have had since we came into government, and I expect that by the end of this financial year about half a million people will have been assisted under those manpower and special apprenticeship programs.

I mention a particular aspect of the CRAFT program which I am sure the honourable member would understand. One of the reasons for the expected underspending is that there are lower claims per apprentice for the number of days spent in technical education than was originally estimated. That does not mean that fewer apprentices will be assisted by CRAFT. It means that those apprentices who are being assisted will not be spending as much time at technical institutions as was expected at the time that the Budget was framed. There may also be a higher apprenticeship wastage than was originally expected. This is a matter that I and my officers have drawn attention to on a number of occasions. There have been studies and studies are continuing with the various State apprenticeship authorities to see what can be done to reduce the amount of apprenticeship wastage. To the extent that we can improve that situation we will improve the overall supply of tradesmen in Australia.

page 1693

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr CARLTON:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. What is the Government’s current assessment of the effect of interest rate movements in the United States of America on our domestic interest rates? Does the Treasurer see any fundamental differences between the economic problems facing the United States and the economic prospects for Australia?

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

-I think all honourable members will be aware of the very large rises in American interest rates that have occurred in recent months. Indeed, the prime borrowing rate in the United States has almost doubled since July 1 979. The most important thing for us, of course, is the effect of those interest rate rises on the domestic interest rate structure in Australia. The thing that most conditions that effect is, of course, the nature of our domestic economic policies. This Government has never asserted that Australia can isolate itself from world economic developments.

Mr Hurford:

– You did when in opposition.

Mr HOWARD:

– What we said in opposition and what we repeat now is that the extent to which overseas economic circumstances damage the economy of the country will be determined by the appropriateness of the domestic economic policies we follow. I put it to the House that, just as in 1973 and 1974 the domestic economic policies of the then Government fuelled the damaging economic circumstances overseas, on this occasion our domestic economic circumstances are very sharply reducing the impact of adverse economic developments abroad.

Nonetheless, no government can pretend to isolate itself or this country from the effect of world economic developments, and some rises in interest rates in Australia were to be expected. We have directed our policy towards minimising those effects and that, of course, is one of the principal reasons why we chose to appropriate the increased crude oil receipts this financial year to a reduction in the deficit. All of us have an interest in seeing that the effects of interest rate rises overseas are not sharply reflected in Australia. Everybody has a role to play. The Government, of course, has the major role to play through the economic policies it follows and, by pursuing the right economic policies, we have been remarkably successful in preventing the sort of impact on Australia that the wrong economic policies would have produced.

Not only does the Government have a role to play in this area but also, of course, financial institutions, which so far have exercised very considerable restraint, have a role to play in ensuring that there is no undue overreaction to what has occurred abroad. I think honourable members on both sides of the House will realise that there are considerable psychological elements in the level of interest rates and the expectations about the level of inflation.

This country is holding up extremely well in adverse economic conditions. That is overwhelmingly due to one thing and one thing alone, namely, the successful pursuit of the antiinflationary economic strategy of this Government over the past five years. The extent to which we will continue to be able to hold up well in a difficult world economic environment will depend critically on the extent to which the policies of this Government continue not only for the rest of the year but also for the years beyond.

page 1694

QUESTION

PROPOSED OLYMPIC GAMES BOYCOTT

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Minister for Home Affairs state in the House on 6 March, in answer to a question from the honourable member for St George, that the Soviet Union boycotted the Berlin Olympics? Did he know that the Soviet Union was not a member of the International Olympic Committee in 1936? Was he aware that the Soviet Union- and I exclude from this Czarist Russia in 1912- did not attend any Olympic Games prior to 1 952? That is, the Soviet Union did not attend the 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932 or 1948 Games. Did he know that the Soviet Union did not have a national Olympic committee until April 1951 and that it did not affiliate with the International Olympic Committee until May 1 95 1? If he knew this, why did he mislead the House by claiming that the Soviet Union boycotted an event it was not invited to attend and was not eligible to attend?

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

– One cannot cease to be amazed at how the Opposition, in relation to this boycott, consistently seeks to uphold the position of the Soviet Union. It just boggles my -

Mr Cohen:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to order. Then was nothing in my question that indicated support for the Soviet Union. I asked why the Minister tried to mislead the House on a question of fact.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr ELLICOTT:

– My understanding is that it was open to the Soviet Union to participate in the Olympics prior to 1936 and it chose not to do so. If that is not a boycott, I do not know what is. The Soviet Union maintained that position in relation to the 1 936 Olympics by trying to establish with other countries what were called workers games. I indicated to the House what happened in relation to that. The word ‘boycott’ has been used to describe what happened in 1936 so far as the conduct of the Soviet Union was concerned. I suggest that the honourable gentleman turn his attention more to the statements which have been made by the Leader of the Opposition as to what is an effective boycott. They indicate that the Leader of the Opposition is completely and utterly confused as to what is an effective boycott. I suggest that members of the Opposition have a careful look at the statements of the

Leader of the Opposition on AM yesterday and compare them with what he said in his Press statement in January. It is time that Opposition members made up their minds on what an effective boycott is.

page 1694

QUESTION

DOMESTIC AIR FARES

Mr SHACK:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Transport a question. I refer to the announced proposed public independent inquiry into Australia ‘s domestic air fare situation. When will the Minister be in a position to announce the terms of reference of the inquiry and the membership of the inquiry panel?

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

-I can well understand the honourable member’s interest in this matter because of the great pressures on him from Western Australia. There is a great concern amongst a great number of Western Australian people about the structure of domestic air fares. There is the belief that long haul passengers are subsidising fares on the short haul routes in this country. It was against that background that the Government decided to establish a public inquiry into the air fare structure in Australia. I hope to be in a position in the course of the next week to make an announcement on the terms of reference and the personnel to undertake that inquiry.

page 1694

QUESTION

BLAIR ATHOL STEAMING COAL PROJECT

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Minister for Trade and Resources. Has the Electric Power Development Corporation of Japan applied for approval for equity in the Blair Athol steaming coal project? Is it a fact that the Government previously approved the sale by Clutha Development Pty Ltd of 32 per cent of the equity in the project to the American oil company, Atlantic Richfield Corporation, despite the fact that ARCO had no previous interest in or claims to the project and despite protests from Conzinc Rio-Tinto of Australia and the Japanese utilities? Is it also a fact that ARCO now realises that there will be no contracts from Japan unless there is substantial Japanese equity? Is the Government now jammed on its fifty-fifty foreign investment rule owing to the fact that there is not enough equity in the project for both ARCO and the Japanese utilities? In view of the fact that ARCO was never in a position to bring a sales contract to the project and that the Japanese were prepared to, why did the Government yield to Treasury pressure and approve the ARCO participation? Why is the Government now persisting in its discrimination against Japan?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– There are some interesting facts relating to that question. One is that the Labor Party now does not seem to be concerned about trying to get 50 per cent Australian equity in resource development. That is the import of the question. The honourable member is attacking us for having a policy of trying to get the maximum–

Mr Keating:

– I rise on a point of order. There is no such implication in the question. The question is clear: Why did the Government let ARCO in in the first place if it thought the Japanese could deliver a contract? It is as simple as that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman knows that there is no point of order.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I am not sure how many more goes the honourable member for Blaxland wants. He continues to get absolutely confused with his energy policies and facts relating to resources. Earlier there was a transfer of foreign ownership from the Ludwig company to Atlantic Richfield in America; so there was no change in the foreign equity situation. When the Foreign Investment Review Board gave approval for that it also added a conditional clause that if the project were to go ahead there should be maximum Australian participation.

The Electric Power Development Corporation of Japan has recently been in negotiation with CRA and Atlantic Richfield in relation to getting an involvement. The Foreign Investment Review Board has been requested to give approval. The FIRB has examined the request and, on examination, has rejected it because insufficient attention has been given to getting Australian equity in the project. As the situation stands at the moment, the companies are being asked to do what they can to see what Australian interests can be involved in this project. Until we have more information on that subject, I do not think anybody would have any other point of view. It should be in the interests of all of us to get the maximum Australian participation in such a great resource development.

page 1695

QUESTION

FILM ON SAUDI ARABIA

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Acting Prime Minister: Has he been made aware of concern in Saudi Arabia and other nations of the Middle East about a film which is purported to depict events in Saudi Arabia and which has been shown on television in Britain? Are there any plans to show this film in Australia? If so, does the Minister believe that it would further Australian relations with the nations of the Middle East?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I am aware of this film, Death of a Princess, which has caused very great concern amongst Arab nations and particularly Saudi Arabia. As a result -

Mr Jacobi:

– What about the princess?

Mr ANTHONY:

– Honourable members should not laugh, as the situation is very sensitive for people of the Islamic religion. I am aware of the feeling and the sensitivity. We live in a nation in which there is very little censorship of the media, and we rely on the media’s own responsibility to try to do what is in the best national interest. For this reason, I sent a telex this morning to the television station setting out a lot of matters that I believe it should take into consideration if it is to show this film. I would like to table a copy of the telex that I sent to the television station. I point out that this program is grossly offensive to Saudi Arabia and the royal family and it is grossly offensive also to a number of other Arab countries. Indeed, it is offensive to the Islamic religion. We ought to be considerate of these people’s religious beliefs and customs. Honourable members should understand that if this film is shown in Australia it will cause harm and do damage. I am of the belief that if the television station goes ahead and shows this film it will not do any good to the relationships which many of us have been trying to build up with the Islamic countries. Those countries are important and influential. I can see much damage being done if these television stations believe that they have an unfounded right to go ahead and film these things irrespective of the feelings of other people.

page 1695

QUESTION

FILM ON SAUDI ARABIA

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question subsequent to the answer that he has just given. Can we assume from that answer that it is the intention of the Government that where special commercial interests, as decided upon by the Government, are concerned in the future the rights of people in this country to read, hear and see material will be determined by the standards that are imposed by the other country? To what extent does this Government allow foreign policy considerations to be determined by oil taps overseas?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– It would be completely irresponsible of a national government to ignore the consequences of some of these actions. Therefore, we have spoken to the television station about the implications. Taking any draconian action by actually preventing this screening is another matter altogether. It is not being suggested that the Government will try to censor this program. I would hope that the suggestions that I have put forward, and my reasons for putting them, might be considered by the television station when it is deciding whether this program will be shown.

page 1696

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Mr Haslem proceeding to address a question to the Minister for the Capital Territory-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s question is out of order. The Minister is not responsible for the subject matter of the question.

page 1696

QUESTION

URANIUM ENRICHMENT

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it a fact that 38 per cent of West Germany’s uranium fuel is enriched in the Soviet Union and that West German utilities are considering sending spent nuclear fuel to the Soviet Union for reprocessing? In view of the Government’s desire to arrange uranium sales to West Germany and in view of the participation of a West German company in the Yeelirrie uranium mining operation in Western Australia, will the Acting Prime Minister guarantee that no Australian uranium or spent fuel derived from Australian uranium will be transferred to the Soviet Union for enrichment or for reprocessing and plutonium separation?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

– I am aware that the Soviet Union does toll enrich uranium for a number of European countries. I am not aware of any arrangement being made for Australian uranium to be enriched or for waste material from Australia to be handled in the Soviet Union.

page 1696

PETROLEUM RETAIL MARKETING FRANCHISE BILL

Mr CHAPMAN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs advise the House of the latest position with respect to the draft Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Bill which was released for public comment on 6 February 1980?

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

– I can report to the House that the program for the consideration of that matter is proceeding as scheduled. The Bill was made available and comments on it were invited by the end of March. In fact a large number of representations from oil companies, dealer associations and many dealers have been received. I have had a number of discussions with officials and others about its contents. The fact is, as has been announced previously, that the Government will be making a decision about these issues, of which the draft legislation which was put out for exposure and comment is only one of the elements. The Government has also asked the Trade Practices Commission to carry out a survey. The Commission is doing so and has said that it will respond by the end of May. I will shortly be calling a meeting about this matter, as one of the steps that we must take.

I notice that Dr Edwards has said that the Government of Queensland also is very concerned about the matter. I think he said on Sunday that that Government was contemplating legislation which would bar oil companies from selling petrol direct to consumers in Queensland. Of course, that is one of the elements that are being asked for by the Australian Automobile Chamber of Commerce. I know that there is a great deal of concern about this matter on the part of many people, certainly including many members of this House who have spoken to me. The Government is actively examining the issues. I will let the honourable member know when there is further progress.

page 1696

QUESTION

SAUDI ARABIA

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that the Saudi Arabian criminal code provides for brutal and degrading punishments including public execution, mutilation and other things which are abhorrent to every civilised society and which have been banned by the United Nations, by various agreements and so on? Does he agree that it is therefore proper that the rest of the world should know about these actions? Why is he allocating the right of censorship of Australian television programs to the authorities of Saudi Arabia?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-One of the things I appreciate is that the Islamic religion has tenets which go into all the normal customs of life. Indeed, the whole legal structure of the Islamic countries is dependent upon the writings of the Koran. The Islamic religion is a very strict religion. People who are party to it understand it and abide by the obligations of it. The Islamic religion today has about 600 million members and is reputed to be one of the fastest growing religions in the world. Followers of Islam have their own customs and traditions and it is not for us to question part of their religious belief.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Acting Prime Minister is misleading the House. It is not a general moral law.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is a specific law relating to the royal family.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. If he interjects again and keeps talking while I am addressing him I will have to deal with him.

page 1697

QUESTION

NAVIGATION FEES AND CHARGES

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

-I refer the Minister for Transport to a Budget decision that resulted in an increase of up to 500 per cent in fees and charges for services provided under the Navigation Act. These increases are seriously affecting the viability of craft operating on the Murray River as a vital part of Australia’s expanding tourist industry. Will the Minister consider a review of these charges and the procedures by which the survey of vessels is undertaken? Will he also consider placing river craft in a different category from sea-going vessels involved in trade and commerce?

Mr HUNT:
NCP/NP

– I appreciate the honourable gentleman’s concern about the tourist industry along the River Murray and particularly in the city of Mildura. The River Murray, of course, is one of the great tourist attractions of that city and the surrounding district. The honourable member referred to the broader question of applying the user-pay principle to navigation charges and the use of facilities by vessels and craft which is of course a matter of Government policy. In considering the viability of vessels operating on the River Murray, the Government is currently considering the question of State jurisdiction. The control of these vessels has been the subject of discussion between the Commonwealth and the States for some time. Following an agreement reached in the Marine and Ports Council of Australia I hope that we will be in a position to introduce in the not too distant future legislation which will differentiate between those vessels which are considered to be pleasure or fishing vessels operating on inland rivers or in coastal waters and those vessels that sail outside the 200-mile limit.

page 1697

QUESTION

PROFITABILITY OF BANKS

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I direct my question, with some disappointment, to the Treasurer. I refer him to the record after-tax profits of $240m obtained by the five major private trading banks in 1978-79, which represent a return on issued ordinary capital of 40 per cent. In view of the fact that the return on shareholder funds for all companies in that year was only 12 to 13 per cent, what explanation can he offer for the extraordinarily high level of profitability in the banking sector? Further, does he see this high profitability as a result of banks charging borrowers excessively high interest rates? Is it a fact that the Government, through the Reserve Bank of Australia, controls most of the trading bank interest rates?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-Perhaps I can answer the question by starting from the end and working through to the beginning. I point out to the honourable member that the control over interest rates exercised by the Government and the Reserve Bank of Australia at present relates to overdrafts and loans drawn under $100,000 and not to other areas. Whether the profits made by one or other section of the business community are excessive or unreasonable in the eyes of some or other sections of the community is, of course, a matter of opinion. I take the view and the Government certainly takes the view that it is not appropriate for governments to express opinions about whether sectors of the business community that have been successful in conducting their business affairs are making excessive profits. I do not believe that the profits earned by the trading banks in the period that the honourable gentleman mentioned mean that the trading banks were charging excessive rates of interest. Anybody who examines the behaviour of the banks during that period and anybody who looks at the levels of inflation during that period will be satisfied that that is the case.

I think that the honourable gentleman’s question demonstrates the almost manic preoccupation of the Opposition with the profitability of Australian business enterprises. I point out to the honourable member for Lalor that the entire banking system, the controls upon it which are exercised by the Government, the conditions under which it operates, the freedoms which it has and the monopolies, if any, that it exercises are now all under notice before the Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System which was established by this Government to have a fundamental look at our financial system. If the honourable member for Lalor or anybody else in the Opposition believes that the Australian trading banks are making excess profits because of a privileged position, it is open to the honourable member and members of the Opposition to make submissions before that Committee of Inquiry. As I understand the situation, the Opposition is less inclined than other sections of the Australian community to open up the existing banking system and the trading banks to more competition. If the honourable member for Lalor really believes that the trading banks are in a privileged position he ought to re-examine the attitude of his own party on that subject.

page 1698

QUESTION

AMERICAN OUTREACH PROGRAM

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs instituted any studies of the American Outreach Program which includes a Vietnam veterans advisory and counselling service with shopfront facilities? If so, what is the result of those studies? Will the Minister consider presenting to the Government proposals for a similar service in Australia backed by appropriate financial support?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · NCP/NP

-The honourable gentleman will be aware, as I advised this House some time ago, that a repatriation commissioner, Mr Medbury, went to America to study a number of matters, such as what is happening in that country regarding the disabilities of veterans and what is being done to try to find some of the answers that our study is charged with finding. I asked him whether at that time he had come across this Outreach operation. He said that he had and that he had received certain information on it, which he is providing to me. The gathering of that information has not yet been completed. I have received a submission from the Vietnam Veterans Action Association on the matter. I am looking at what it involves and seeing whether there is any prospect of the Government’s doing more than it is doing through its repatriation system, through its social security system, through the various State branches of the Department of Social Security and through the veterans’ organisations themselves. If there is a deficiency in that regard I will let the honourable member know what it is and what I propose to do about it.

page 1698

QUESTION

OFFICE OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENTS: SALE OF CLASSIFIED MATERIAL

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Government have any evidence that personnel of the Office of National Assessments have sold classified intelligence material to commercial lobbyists, as has been reported in some newspapers? If so, will he give the House full details of the lobbyists and ONA staff concerned in any such dealings? Furthermore, in any such circumstances, will he inform the House of what action has been taken to stop such practices and to prevent their recurrence?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-The Government has no knowledge at all of any documents being traded from the Office of National Assessments. There was the report of a missing document which the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation has been asked to investigate. It is not known whether the document has been stolen or just shredded within the Office, and this is being looked at more closely. In the last few days a number of allegations or accusations have been made regarding personnel in the Office of National Assessments. The Government is looking at what action it might take in relation to these allegations. I hope to be in a position to say more on this matter in the near future.

page 1698

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Mr SIMON:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware of suggestions by one newspaper commentator that the application of the Government’s recently announced liquefied petroleum gas policy will be fraught with administrative difficulties? Is the Minister able to assure honourable members that the Government’s LPG policy will bring considerable advantages to consumers, in particular those in rural Australia? When does the Minister expect to introduce legislation to ensure that these benefits will be available to motorists, rural domestic consumers and other consumers?

Mr GARLAND:
LP

– I see no difficulties in the administration of this subsidy scheme. I take the opportunity of warning anybody who might think that is possible. There will be, of course, considerable penalties for any breach of the law. I hope that it will be possible to introduce the Bill into the Parliament this week. The Bill provides, as has been announced, a subsidy of $80 per tonne of LPG to be used by householders and by non-profit organisations such as schools and hospitals. Of course, one of the main problems in respect of LPG is that the LPG produced in Australia is almost all exported at present; whereas, in a few years, Australian demand will rise to the amount of our production.

The Government has brought forward a policy which was announced last week by my colleague, Senator Carrick. It is a very good policy. It provides for a three-tier system which will give the opportunity of reaching national objectivesand surely most honourable members in this House would see that as valuable- such as providing an incentive for motorists to use LPG, especially those motorists who are running fleets or who have a high consumption of fuel. The object is to encourage the use of less oil in this country by providing approximately a 50 per cent difference between the costs of LPG and motor spirit. This will be an incentive to convert or use LPG in motor vehicles where there is a high use. The policy provides also for tax incentives for people to get out of oil use and into the use of electricity, which is produced from coal, because we have ample reserves of coal in this country and we do not have ample reserves of oil. The subsidy provides people with the opportunity to make that restructuring. There has been a rapid rise in LPG world prices recently and there are people- householders and other categories as set out in the statement- who will need assistance for some time to enable them to restructure, particularly those in country areas.

page 1699

QUESTION

GEORGES RIVER

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Science and the Environment aware that the Georges River in Sydney was once a beautiful, unpolluted, rambling, river paradise? Further, is the Minister aware that over the years the Georges River became polluted and, despite remedial action by various New South Wales governments and bordering municipal councils, there is still a high degree of pollution, particularly in the upper reaches of the river? Further, is the Minister aware that a report of a Senate committee which was tabled in August 1979 discloses that the sewage treatment works at the Holsworthy Army Base do not meet health standards and that raw sewage is discharged into the Georges River, further polluting the river and harming oyster farming in the lower reaches of the river? Finally, will the Minister for Science and the Environment use his best endeavours with the Minister for Defence to try to improve the present unsatisfactory sewage treatment works at the Holsworthy Army Base, thereby restoring the Georges River to its once beautiful, unpolluted state?

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

-I am aware of pollution problems in the Georges River. This was brought to my notice recently by the honourable member for St George, who obviously is very interested in that problem. It is basically a matter for the New South Wales Government. I was not aware of a report of pollution purportedly emanating from Holsworthy. I will discuss that with the Minister for Defence.

page 1699

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) ACT 1978

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

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1 978, 1 present copies of an agreement with Queensland and associated documents in respect of projects in conjunction with the development and management of water resources.

page 1699

AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1 904 I present the annual report of the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission 1979.

page 1699

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE SCHEME

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Health · Warringah · LP

- Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may do so.

Mr MacKELLAR:

-Mr Speaker, on 1 April, in response to a motion proposing a matter of public importance concerning health insurance, I presented a number of figures in relation to health fund contributor levels as at the end of December 1978, December 1979 and February 1 980. 1 wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the figures that I presented were for selected funds only and not for all registered health insurance funds. As honourable members may be aware, my Department receives details of fund membership levels on a quarterly basis. As I wished to provide the House with the most up-to-date information available I supplied preliminary information for selected funds as at the end of February 1980. In order to allow honourable members to make valid comparisons with membership levels in the past I necessarily provided this information for the same selected funds, as at the end of December 1978 and December 1979.

I also wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that two typographical errors were made in the figures which appeared in Hansard of 1 April. In order to correct them I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables setting out membership levels for health funds on both a selected fund and a total fund basis.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

page 1700

PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY: TRANSFER OF MR J. S. DUNN

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker, with your indulgence I seek leave to make a statement in response to the statement which you tabled earlier on the transfer of Mr J. S. Dunn.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker, at the commencement of the business of the House today you took the opportunity to table a statement with attached documents in relation to the extraordinary circumstances associated with the transfer of Mr J. S. Dunn, who has been in charge, and continues to be in charge, of the Foreign Affairs Group, Legislative Research Service, of the Parliamentary Library. I presume that the statement and the documents attached thereto purport to be a good and sufficient explanation of these extraordinary circumstances and a satisfactory account of why Mr Dunn was moved and why, in such a short space of time after the announcement of his transfer, that decision was reversed. I assure you, Mr Speaker, that as far as I am concerned, having considered your statement and the attachments thereto I am far from satisfied. I do not regard the statement as good and sufficient by any means at all. Great damage has been done to Mr Dunn and the high regard in which he is held by members of the Parliament was quickly attested to by one simple fact- the number of members of this Parliament, of both Houses and of all parties, who were prepared to express quite forcefully their support of Mr Dunn and their confidence in the quality of the work that he had provided.

These are some of the things that I want to range over. I do not want to take a great deal of time on these matters. I must say that I feel happier now that the decision has been made to reinstate Mr Dunn and that you have tabled the statement in the Parliament. It avoids less pleasant procedures which we would have found it necessary to adopt in the interests of simple and natural justice for an employee of the Parliament. However, Mr Speaker, before I return to your statement and to the attachments, perhaps I ought to point out that as a result of the events in the past week or so grave damage was done not only to Mr Dunn’s reputation but also to the confidence of members of the Parliament in the institutions, particularly the Parliamentary Library, which serve the Parliament. Again I must say to you, Mr Speaker, and to the President of the Senate that grave damage was done to your reputations in the eyes of at least many people in the Parliament and in the eyes of a great number outside it. Of course, the most serious issue of all that arises in this imbroglio is the simple fact that the independence of members of this Parliament and their capacity to make the Executive accountable were seriously impaired during the problems associated, I repeat, with the extraordinary demotion- that is effectively what it was- of Mr Dunn.

Let me move on to the statement because I want to discuss some of these points in the course of attending to what you say, Mr Speaker, and to what is appended to your statement as documentation. Mr Speaker, it seems to me from reading your statement that in relation to the initial interview- probably the only one, if I recall correctly- you had with the radio program AM, you feel that a sufficient defence is effected against your comments, which, I freely acknowledge I apprehended before you drew attention to this in your statement, were misquoted subsequently by some other sources. It seems that you believe that if the public had been aware of the explicit question put to you on AM rather than of the introduction leading to your first comment as broadcast from the tape, a material difference would have been established in the view of the public as to the reasons that you responded in the way in which you did and as to the import of your response. I find that totally unconvincing, with respect, Mr Speaker. The question that was put to you, to condense it, was -

Mr Viner:

– Quote it accurately; do not condense it.

Mr HAYDEN:

– If I were drawing on the resources of the Liberal Party headquarters I would be worried about misquotation, and the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs knows a lot about it. The transcript of the AM program stated, in part:

Sir Billy Snedden conceded that Mr Dunn’s criticism of Government policy over East Timor and his briefing of Mr Hayden on Afghanistan were elements in his removal. He ‘s talking to Warwick Adderley.

Sir Billy Snedden:

– I should think that they were elements in the matter, I can’t say that they were the exclusive elements, nor can I say what other clements there were.

Mr Speaker, you seem to quibble. On page 4 of your statement you put on the record exactly the question that was put to you, as follows:

But, has Mr Dunn been removed for his criticism of the Government’s policy over East Timor or his briefing of Mr Hayden over Afghanistan?

Your response is:

I should think that they were elements in the matter, I can’t say that they were the exclusive elements, nor can I say what other elements there were.

Mr Speaker, I cannot find any substantial difference in the import of what you said in response to that question; nor can I find any difference in meaning or intent between the way in which the summary was put leading to your response and the direct question which you quoted. Let me state right from the start that it is quite clear that you, Mr Speaker, have acknowledged that Mr Dunn’s expressed views on Timor, which he expressed within his rights as an individual and private citizen in the community, and his briefing of me on Afghanistan- to which I will come back later- were in fact elements in his removal. Of course, you do not seek to deny that in any way, because the documentation attached to your statement makes it quite clear that the Parliamentary Librarian had been in communication with you on these matters.

Let me move from that to argue that it seems to me, after considering the documentation attached, that the whole exercise was a flimsy undertaking to railroad Mr Dunn and to get him out of the job he was doing into some sort of recess where he would be neither seen nor heard from. That is totally unjustifiable treatment of this very loyal and competent officer whose qualities have been acclaimed from both sides of the House. It is quite unjustifiable treatment of the sorts of facilities and of access to resources that members of this Parliament quite reasonably should expect. What it is sought to do now in terms of your statement, in terms of the documentation which has been presented to the Parliament, is to establish a case of exculpation on the grounds that Mr Dunn was seeking to take up an appointment at the University of Adelaide, that he was seeking to obtain leave of absence without pay and that this would involve a period of 12 months. Accordingly, the proposition is put and argued by Mr Weir and at least tacitly endorsed by you at some stage it would seem- it is up to you to deny that if you wish, but in denying it you have to give a lot of explanation because considerable discourse took place between you and Mr Weir- that as a favour to Mr Dunn he was to be shifted to one side. I will come back later to the nature of that shift. It was nasty, it was demeaning and it would have been destructive of the self-respect and the intellectual credibility of Mr Dunn if he had tolerated it. But this is what Mr Weir says in his communication to you of 14 April. This is where the evidence is of his effort to extricate himself from the problem in which he found himself with others such as yourself. In paragraph 2 of that communication to you he says this:

On 13th March, 1980, Mr Dunn sent me a minute in which he reported that a proposal for a Fellowship for twelve months at the University of Adelaide now appears to be firming up’.

I will not go into the rest of it; it is all on the record. In the next paragraph Mr Weir states:

On 9th April, 1980, further to a discussion on 2nd April, he . . .

That is Dunn- was handed a letter dated the previous day (Document B attached) in which it was confirmed that, with effect from Monday, 14th April, 1980, he would be transferred to duties as a Special Projects Officer . . . The object of this move was to accommodate Mr Dunn’s wishes, consistent with overall policy of the Department on Leave Without Pay.

That is a limp excuse. Let me quote what Mr Dunn says about it. In document A attached of 13 March he says this about his anticipation of obtaining the appointment at the University of Adelaide:

If all goes well-

It had not gone well to that stage; there was a long way to go before the case was sewn up, for Mr Dunn to obtain the fellowship appointment -

I propose to apply for one year ‘s leave without pay.

That is explicitly acknowledged in Mr Weir’s communication to you of 14 April because he quotes Mr Dunn in respect of the potential of the appointment as saying that it ‘now appears to be firming up’. ‘Now appears to be firming up’ is a long way removed from having established or having sewn up the arrangement to serve at the Adelaide University. I suspect that all of this unpleasantness has probably destroyed the man’s opportunities to obtain that appointment. But the fact is that it was far from certain that Mr Dunn had the appointment; there was no finality about the arrangements. But on this flimsy pretext the man was shifted.

Let us have a look at Mr Dunn’s minute of 10 April 1980 in which he responds to Mr Weir on the subject of the proposed transfer. At page 2 of the minute he says:

Your letter also seriously misrepresents an important aspect of our discussion. In your second paragraph you say that I am to be free from my present responsibilities in response to wishes I had previously expressed to you and others. This is simply untrue. You raised this very matter during our discussion, and I emphatically informed you that I was quite happy with my present position and was content to remain here.

In the third paragraph on page 2 of his minute he said:

As for the question of my obtaining a fellowship at the University of Adelaide, as I repeatedly -

I stress the word ‘repeatedly’- explained to you, a formal offer has not yet been made, and therefore it is not appropriate that this issue be raised at this stage.

That minute was dated 10 April. Yet on 14 April Mr Weir put it in a completely different context altogether. There is a succession of documentary evidence that in my view establishes that this was nothing more than a flimsy defence for a very unpleasant exercise undertaken with, I believe, embarrassing and even humilitating consequences not just for Mr Dunn but for his family too.

Let us look at another aspect of the treatment of Mr Dunn. I refer to documentation from Mr Weir to Mr Dunn on 8 April. In the second paragraph he says rather generously one would think:

In response to wishes you have previously expressed to me and others you are to be freed from responsibility for a Research Group administration and given time for in-depth research and writing.

That on the face of it seems extraordinarily generous. Superficially the Librarian is concerned to provide expanded opportunities uncluttered by general administrative responsibilities for in-depth research. Let us see what Mr Dunn has to say about that because Mr Dunn’s response is considerably different from what is said by Mr Weir in the paper I have just quoted. I have already quoted some comments made by Mr Dunn in his minute of 10 April to Mr Weir. In the second paragraph of this minute Mr Dunn said:

In your letter, you have specified that in this position, although I would continue to have access to the resources of the Library -

This is the part that bears emphasis-

I would not have access to the communications from the Department of Foreign Affairs. This is to me an extraordinary step to take, particularly as most communications from the Department of Foreign Affairs are unclassified.

Mr Dunn had been provided with and this is in quotation marks the irony of which I hope escapes no one- ‘the generous arrangement where unburdened by administrative responsibilities he can carry out in-depth research into matters associated with foreign affairs’. Yet he is to be deprived of the essential tools of his trade, the intellectual material upon which he must form his judgments as a consequence of research, reflection and weighing up in a considered way and making judgments about matters that he has under his purview. It is like a housepainter being denied the tools of his trade- the paint, the roller or the paint brush. It is an incredibly flimsy proposition to put before the Parliament that the whole thing can be glossed away as simply as this- just a simple little mistake. In effect what is being said is: ‘It was all a misunderstanding. We are all good brothers together. We wanted to help out Jim Dunn. We wanted to provide him with an arrangement where he would be freer to develop himself intellectually and express himself more creatively and effectively’. This was nothing more than a muzzle or hobble to be imposed on the man, and I challenge people to consider the documentation if there is any doubt about that.

Let us go on and look at some of the other material. Mr Speaker, it transpires that it goes back a long way. It would seem almost as though the slingshot to be aimed at Mr Dunn was being loaded several months ago, because on 19 November last year Mr Weir, writing to your colleague the President- you share with him responsibility for the administration of Library services- said something that has gone out, of course, to damn Mr Dunn, a man who I repeat is respected by members on both sides of the House and of the Senate for the quality of his work, for the impartiality with which he has presented it and the satisfaction he has given to all members of the Parliament who have drawn on him, some of whom have made very fine reputations subsequently as a result of being able to draw on that sort of resource. I say that in the most genuine and generous manner. On 19 November Mr Weir said something which was terribly damaging and humiliating. He said:

My concern about Mr Dunn’s apparent lack of objectivity is known to you and has been discussed with him by the Senior Research Director. At this stage I am treating the problem as one of training and supervision.

I find that completely unacceptable as a proposition. I also find it in conflict with the guidelines laid down in the draft code of conduct that Mr Weir, the Parliamentary Librarian, is circulating. I find that totally unsatisfactory. From now on Mr Dunn has to bear the imprint of this damaging criticism as a professional. That is unacceptable and some steps have to be undertaken to clear the man of this sort of slur. It is obvious that if members on both sides of this House stand up to publicly condemn the treatment of Mr Dunn and acclaim the quality of his workthat is bipartisanship at its best- in their view that observation by Mr Weir cannot be substantiated. Look how that observation about Mr Dunn’s apparent lack of objectivity contradicts the statement in the draft code conduct for parliamentary staff. The first page of the draft code under the headings ‘Provision of Information, At member’s request’ reads:

Staff, in performing their duties, should seek, within the framework of Departmental policies and procedures, to meet the needs of their clients as their clients perceive them.

No one is going to tell me that this place is par excellence when it comes to the issue of impartiality as between this side of the House and the other side. When we want material for our speeches to establish the justification for cases we have- that is, based according to our valued judgments- we want hard evidence. We do not want any grey, flimsy matter or some limp proposition that does not stand up. Let us not have anyone stand up in this House to try to argue that any one in the community, least of all parliamentarians, is free of value judgments before he proceeds to determine attitudes on any matter of great moment.

When Mr Dunn or any member of the Library research service is given a set of guidelines as to what is required from a member of Parliament, he is expected to provide information that conforms with those guidelines. They are not his responsibility; they are the responsibility exclusively of the member of Parliament. It is not a responsibility or an obligation that must be borne, in terms of answerability later, by the Parliamentary Library; that is the responsibility of the member of Parliament. I find this slur totally unacceptable and it has to be expunged from the record. There must be a clearing of the professional integrity of Mr Dunn.

Let us move on to the alleged offences of Mr Dunn, the issues that brought this matter to a head. You say yourself, Mr Speaker, in the second paragraph of your statement- by implication at least- that the issue of partiality is a grave issue in terms of the assessment which was made of Mr Dunn. You said this: . . The committed attitude of Mr Dunn and whether its expression both nationally and internationally might be seen as inconsistent with the requirement of impartiality of the Library and whether Mr Dunn might be seen as using his position on the Library staff to influence policy.

That is a matter that was discussed with you, Mr Speaker. That was one of the elements in this determination from which I believe you cannot divorce yourself. Your very comments on AM, which I quoted to you, on the morning of 9 April clearly associate you with the ongoing developments relating to the transfer of Mr Dunn- the humiliating demotion in most unfortunate and unjustifiable circumstances. I would argue the toss with you, Mr Speaker, about the issue of partiality or impartiality and so would many other members of this Parliament, including those on the Government side. The matter of partiality related to Mr Dunn’s well-known views on the issue of Timor.

Mr Dunn, in common with other people in this community, has rights as a private citizen. The last thing we want to see is a situation where people serving the Parliament or serving the community through the Public Service are stifled in the proper expression of their views on matters of contemporary concern to society. They are not going to be intellectually gelded just because they are serving the community or the Parliament. On the contrary, they have a responsibility, in my view, to make known the expertise which is available to try to help the community better to understand the great issues of the time. Of course, there are provisos about that, about confidentiality of information and about crossing certain aspects of policy. Let no one argue the toss about the international standing of Mr Dunn on the issue of human rights. He is highly regarded, highly respected and has been courted from many sources to put his views. There are not enough such people in the community. In this Parliament there is too much selective indignation on the issue of international human rights. One cannot say that about Mr Jim Dunn. There are people on your side of the House, Mr Speaker, the Government side -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will withdraw that implication.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Then why say it if you are so ready to withdraw it?

Mr HAYDEN:

– Do you want me to argue the toss with you as to why I said it?

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman not to repeat it.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Dunn has been asked to appear before a sub-committee of the United States Congress to put his view. He has gone there and to other international forums for that purpose. Such is the quality of his view and such is the force and impact of what he puts. One thing must always be said about the man, and that is that he puts his view with integrity, conviction and complete honesty- qualities that ought to be applauded in any community. That is not enough reason to discriminate against the man. Mr Dunn has always made the distinction between his public responsibilities working in this place and his role as a private citizen.

You said, Mr Speaker, that Mr Dunn had breached two Library rules, namely by obtaining material from the Office of National Assessments which was not published or free to be published and disclosing the member for whom the material was prepared. Let me deal with the second point first. I spoke to Mr Dunn yesterday. That was not an unreasonable action. After all, I am directly implicated in so much of what has been said on this matter. My name has been bandied about in association with this matter. Mr Dunn told me that my identity was never disclosed to ONA, nor to any other source not entitled to know my identity. What Mr Dunn said was that he was seeking information of a non-classified type and that he was seeking it for the Opposition. He said those things very properly so that the framework upon which any response would proceed would be clearly understood. He said that the Opposition was involved and he wanted nothing that was classified. That allegation against Mr Dunn is wrong, on the account that he has given me, and I believe has given to others. That misrepresentation ought not to be perpetuated any longer. Mr Speaker, you said:

Mr Dunn had breached two Library rules, namely, obtaining material from ONA which was not published or free to be published -

You, Mr Speaker, in fact restricted the rules even more on AM on the morning of 9 April. You said this:

Well, my recollection is that the Librarian when that matter came up I inquired from the Librarian what the situation was and my recollection is that the Librarian provided to me a staff instruction which had existed for a very long time that in putting together material for any member or senator that the Library -

This is the point- should use published material only.

So then you, Mr Speaker, restricted the conditions upon which material could be provided even more than you did in your statement today. Let us get the full outline of the conditions upon which information can be provided to a member of Parliament. I quote from a document titled Information and Research for Parliament. A guide to services provided by the Department of the Parliamentary Library’. It is dated June 1979 and is issued under the name of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Librarian. At page 6 it states:

Research specialists base their work on their own knowledge, on published material and on information from other authoritive sources, including Government departments and agencies, universities, expert bodies and authorities. Use is made only of information which has been published or is free to be published.

Let us go back to some of the salient qualifications such as ‘information from other authoritative sources’. That does not exclude information from ONA or any other Government department. It is pure fiction of the most extreme form and the most unconvincing quality to suggest it could be otherwise. In fact, it often serves the Government well to have that sort of briefing and information available either through the channel of the legislative research services or directly to a member of Parliament.

I will illustrate that for the House. Last year the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made a statement in this House about his then closely impending visit to Zimbabwe. Anticipating that a statement would be made on this matter, I spoke with Mr Dunn in the Library and obtained some material. After contacting a member of my staff, Mr Dunn arranged that contact be made with an officer of the Foreign Affairs Department. I know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) was aware of this. I compliment the Minister for facilitating this briefing. I commend the quality of the briefing from the young woman who came across representing the Department. Certainly the view of the Department accorded very much with my own views on this matter. The lady concerned rounded out in quite helpful detail many aspects of developments in Zimbabwe at that time on which, in the absence of that information, I would have felt comparatively inadequately informed. That information was extraordinarily helpful in a bipartisan way. I believe that the Minister will acknowledge that when I spoke in the Parliament subsequently I endorsed what the Prime Minister was doing.

More recently there have been problems in arranging for a member of the Opposition to go to Zimbabwe. Senator Bishop was trying to arrange to go on a commercial aircraft. The Prime Minister had been dithering about whether he should or should not go, presumably because he was worried about political flak at home. That apart, what I did say publicly was that I believed thatbeing the matter of such importance- the role of the Prime Minister-I do not think honourable members will recollect too many occasions when I have generously conceded that he has done something of great worth- in that matter was extraordinarily valuable. I am quite generous and forthcoming in those observations. There is a clear case where there is great value in that sort of context. To encapsulate that and to justify my point, I am sure that it also happens that when people in Mr Dunn’s section of the Library are preparing briefing documentation a quick discussion on the matter with an appropriate officer of the Department rounds out the presentation of the case very well. It could even be influential in changing or modifying the point of view of a member. We do not want to destroy those sorts of opportunities. Yet what is happening now, especially with the latest draft code, is a clear attempt to snuff out the opportunities for access to that sort of information from authoritative sources, including Government departments and agencies. Of course, what Mr Dunn did was compatible with that.

We are informed that officers of the Library are to use only information which has been published or is free to be published. I assure honourable members that anything that I said in my speech on Afghanistan, which is the core of so much of the controversy in this matter, was a reflection of material which is publicly available to anyone who is not so lazy as not to read widely journals covering current affairs, whether they be the Guardian Weekly, the Economist, the Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek and Time. These are all quite commonplace publications available to any member of the community. Of course, there are also the Australian newspapers. There was nothing in my speech which has not been covered even in greater detail and, I would say, with more penetrating perception in some cases, than in those journals. It is sheer nonsense to carry out a witch hunt, to pile up the brush wood in the hope that there will be an auto da fe where the main offering will be Mr Dunn. That information was freely available. The toss has to be argued out whether it is published or is free to be published. I assert that everything in my speech has been published in some form or other and I challenge anyone to deny that anything I said was not publishable.

This brings up another issue, that is the simple issue of interpretation. Who will decide what is publishable of material that has not yet been published? In some cases that becomes a very fine point of issue. All I can say is that this is boiling down to an exercise to try to restrict the effectiveness of the parliamentary members- not just the Opposition, but all members of the Parliament- in the discharge of their proper duties to make the Executive answerable. The Parliamentary Library is not there to serve the needs of the Executive. It is there to support the parliamentarians, the legislative processes of the Parliament.

Mr Speaker, if I can move on to another quote on page 4 of your memorable- again that word should be in quotes for suitable irony- interview on AM on 9 April. You said this:

Likewise I Ve got a responsibility to see that the Librarian, in discharging his duties to members and Senators, acts in a way which will not cause the Library to be criticised and will be able to act in a way which is common to all members and all Senators regardless of their political views and their party allegiances.

That statement was interpreted widely on the day that you, Mr Speaker, made it and the day after as a criticism of the balance of the impartiality- or the lack of it- of Mr Dunn. I was extensively interviewed by people from radio and television and almost exclusively that was their interpretation of your statement. Mr Speaker, it ill befits you in your position to make such a damaging statement of a man trying to discharge his professional responsibilities to the legislative processes of this Parliament, trying to do it honestly and clearly and, in the view of parliamentarians, with a high level of competence and satisfaction to them.

Mr Speaker, you asked for members of the Parliament to extend respect to you, on a bipartisan basis. A few minutes ago you upbraided me for drawing attention to one simple fact: You are a member of the Liberal Party and are in this Parliament by virtue of the fact that you are a Liberal Party member who happened to be elected to this Parliament as a Liberal parliamentarian. You occupy the position that you now hold because you are a member of the Government. If you were a member of the Opposition, you would not be there. I fail to see why you found a clear statement of simple fact so offensive. Mr Speaker, let me put this to you. You have asked us to extend to you certain levels of respect. I acknowledge that you have struggled commendably, and with success in some areas, to try to establish greater dignity for your role and, in a more difficult area, greater dignity in this Parliament. When this sort of thing is done I suggest that it is completely unfair. Dunn- and he is just a symbol of all the other people working in the parliamentary services- is in no position effectively to respond or to defend himself. I have read through all the transcripts that I have been able to get out of the Current Information Section of the Library where these things are recorded of the words of all the people who have commented on this matter. I have found consistently that Dunn has spoken of you- unlike the manner in which you have spoken of him by implication here- in the highest terms. He was generous to a fault in recognising your role here and what you have tried to do. In fact, my recollection is that he has referred to you on at least one occasion as probably being one of the greatest Speakers to occupy the chair in this Parliament. It is a very generous comment. Mr Speaker, I do not believe that you achieved any elevation for the status of your office by resorting to that son of comment. The atmosphere -

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– He retrieved it a bit though by putting him back.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I am sorry; I did not hear what the honourable member had to say.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– He did retrieve a bit of it by putting Dunn back.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is speaking by indulgence. I ask him to continue.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Another unfortunate aspect of the treatment of Mr Dunn is that the extraordinary circumstances associated with his move- his demotion- left a very strong taint of political partiality. Is that disputed? If that is disputed, let me quote from what someone on the Government side had to say on the radio program PM on 9 April. Mr Jim Bonner in interviewing Senator Missen said:

Senator Missen just how much has politics played in the transfer of Mr Dunn?

SENATOR MISSEN: Well that I don’t know. I’m quite sure that it’s played some considerable part . . .

He goes on to round out his views on that aspect and his regard to Mr Dunn. Mr Speaker, that is the unfortunate position in which you have cast yourself. You cannot blame us for that. Members of your own political organisation have criticised you by implication, almost on the border of being explicit, for what you did. Mr Dunn’s movement from his present position- which, of course, has been cancelled now- was nothing more than a deportation of the man to the Library’s equivalent of Siberia. He was to be locked away in a room or ensconced in a room well removed from Parliament House, presumably in the old Canberra Hotel. I presume that the implication is that he was to serve in an area near the statistical service. We would lose the sort of close contact which is essential to the functioning of his services in this Parliament to meet our requirements. He was to be cut off from access to the basic tools of his trade. The information included largely non-classified information from the Foreign Affairs Department which had always been made available to him as a result of arrangements which he was successful in establishing. This is grossly unfair. The treatment of Jim Dunn symbolises rampant injustice- intolerable injustice- in this Parliament in relation to a member of the Parliamentary Library staff.

The Parliamentary Library cannot operate satisfactorily for members of this Parliament, regardless of their political complexions, if it has to operate with the threat of retribution hanging over its head all the time. It cannot operate if it is going to have imposed upon it conditions which masquerade as some sort of code of conduct and which will be interpreted in the most restrictive way possible so that its output is flaccid and virtually useless for such an organ, which has to be vigorous and creative, and aggressive at appropriate times, on behalf of the community, in order to make the Executive accountable. The independence of the Parliamentary Library as an institution serving the legislature was badly imperilled at that stage. The retreat which we now witness was certainly justified. The extraordinary circumstances should never have arisen. The fact that there has been some redress is not enough. In my view a number of things now have to be done about the Parliamentary Library.

I am now a convert to a proposition about which I had always had reservations previouslythat is, the financial appropriation for the functioning of the Parliament must be brought under the independent control of the Parliament itself. It can no longer be left to the manipulation of Ministers and the bureaucrats of the Departments of Treasury and Finance, whose interests are diametrically opposed to developing a strong, challenging parliament. Second, the legislation and the regulations governing the rights of public servants, especially those working directly for the Parliament, must be clarified and spelt out. Third, there must be a clear charter describing the rights, authority and independence of the Parliamentary Library services so that the Parliamentary Library can function without fear of retribution. Fourth, the administration of the Parliamentary Library must be removed from the hands of the Presiding Officers. The administration must come under the control of a committee of members of the Parliament so that it will properly meet the needs of the Parliament and will no longer be manipulated in this undignified and disgraceful manner. Fifth, it would be advisable for the affairs of the House of Representatives and the Senate and all the things that go together in terms of the joint parliamentary procedures to come under one department with one head of department so that the confusing and complex arrangements with so many sections and, apparently, so many departments and functions, serving the Parliament, could be overcome.

Mr Speaker, this is a most unsatisfactory event in the parliamentary life of this country. I remember nothing to parallel it in my 19 years as a member of this Parliament. It neither contributes dignity to you nor confidence in the way in which the Parliamentary Library services can function to meet the needs of members of Parliament, as an institution designed explicitly to give teeth, grit and backbone to the legislative processes of the Parliament. I regret that these matters happened. I sincerely trust that the proposals that I have outlined will be seriously considered by the Parliament jointly and that we can arrive at a bipartisan determination of the best way in which to establish the sort of independence, efficiency, impartiality and quality- all those essential values to the proper functions of a library service- in the future. Certainly, as a result of this very unpleasant imbroglio- if I might observe for the record, you, Mr Speaker, come out of it not too well at all- the Opposition intends to consider the matter further and will be raising further in the Parliament aspects of the matter which is of great general principle.

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

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make only a few short, but I believe pertinent, comments to bring back some balance into this debate. I consider, with the greatest respect to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), that he has grossly misrepresented your position and the position of the Parliamentary Librarian and has sought to use these events as a device to raise other matters. I firmly believe that in public comment on these events and also in the statements made in the House today by the Leader of the Opposition your position, Mr Speaker, has been gravely misrepresented. Some might say that it has been mischievously misrepresented. Any fair-minded person, in reading your statement, your explanation of the circumstances in which you were interviewed on the radio program AM and subsequently recorded over the air and then reading also the statements which you have tabled, would, I think, judge my comments to be correct.

The second point that I make is that it is quite clear from your statement and from the documents which you have presented to this House that the question of the transfer and the reinstatement of Mr Dunn by the Parliamentary Librarian was an internal matter which was wholly within the duties, responsibilities and authorities of the Parliamentary Librarian.

Mr Hurford:

– Absolute rubbish!

Mr VINER:

– The honourable member for Adelaide says: ‘Absolute rubbish!’ But I note that his leader at no time sought to say that there was influence outside and beyond the events which are laid down in the documents which have been presented to this House. It needs to be remembered that the position of the Parliamentary Librarian is that of a permanent head within the Commonwealth Public Service. He has all those powers, duties and authorities of a permanent head. In reading these documents one can see that he acted thoroughly in accordance with the exercise of those powers, responsibilities and authorities. The third point which I make is that, as I have already indicated, the decision was clearly taken by the Parliamentary Librarian independently of you, Mr Speaker, and of Mr President- the two of you are jointly responsible for the departments of the Parliament- and furthermore, independently of any political pressure whatsoever.

The fourth point that I make is that the attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to implicate you, Mr Speaker, by innuendo in the face of the clear and frank statement that you have presented to this House, the clear and frank written documents of the Parliamentary Librarian and the statement by Mr Dunn himself to the Parliamentary Librarian, which has also been tabled, is to be deprecated in the strongest of terms. I am sure that honourable members on the Government side of the House and, I would hope and expect, many honourable members on the Opposition side of the House, would also deprecate the attempt by innuendo to implicate you and- I would say- by inference, Mr President, in the events which have taken place.

The fifth point that I make is in relation to the code of conduct. The Leader of the Opposition, in a rather shallow and empty way, sought to argue that the code of conduct which was circulated by the Parliamentary Librarian and upon the basis of which he acted with respect to Mr Dunn, is some serious threat to the rights and liberties of members of this House and of the Senate. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. The correctness of that observation, I suggest, comes from the merest, let alone the most detailed, reading and consideration of the code of conduct itself I refer to document El, being a circular from the Parliamentary Librarian to all members of staff, dated 8 April 1980, attached to which is a code of conduct under the heading: ‘Department of the Parliamentary Library’. I was interested to read in that circular letter that Mr Weir, while visiting the United States Congressional Research Service in 1979, had observed that that service also acted in accordance with a code of conduct. Honourable members would know that a draft code of conduct is published by the Public Service Board for the benefit of all public servants. I wish to quote from code of conduct of the Department of the Parliamentary Library. It states:

The duty of the staff is to serve the needs of the elected Senators and Members of Parliament and its Committees by the provision of information facilities and research services. The loyalty of staff as officers of a Parliamentary Department must be to the Parliament. All Members of Parliament must be assured of impartial courteous and efficient service without consideration of personnel or political affiliation.

Is that not a standard of conduct of the highest order called for by the Parliamentary Librarian from the members of his staff? The code of conduct goes on:

Confidentiality Aspects

Staff should at all times maintain complete confidentiality in respect of clients’ requests.

In turn, the conventions of the Department discourage clients from attributing material or opinions to the Legislative Research Service particularly when such answers have been tailored to meet specific requirements.

I observe that there have been some occasions when embarrassment has been caused to the staff of the Parliamentary Library by the breaching of that code of conduct, not by the staff of the Library but, regrettably, by honourable members of this House. Under the heading of Impartiality and Balance ‘ the document states:

Clients should always be able to have complete confidence in the impartiality and balance of the services they receive from staff.

Finally, I quote from that section of the document under the heading of ‘Published or Publishable’. It states:

Information given to clients by staff must be either published material or material that is free to be published. The sources of information should always be quoted. Confidential information should never form part of a response.

Other parts of the document deal with activities of staff in public or political activities or holding partisan political viewpoints, publication of articles and so on. I invite all honourable members to read the whole of that code of conduct in a fair-minded way and to judge whether the Parliamentary Librarian has acted properly in his consideration of the events preceding and surrounding the transfer and reinstatement of Mr Dunn.

I make another short observation in that regard with reference to the clarion call by the Leader of the Opposition for parliamentary control of the activities of the Parliamentary Library. There is, pursuant to the Standing Orders of this House, a Library Committee, which comprises Mr Speaker, Mr Baillieu, Mr Bryant, Mr Barry Jones, Mr Martyr, Mr Morris and Mr O ‘Keefe. Mr Speaker, you will have noted that I have declined to debate some of the questions which have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, notably those relating to the attitude of the Parliamentary Librarian to the personal situation of Mr Dunn, his professional conduct in his staff position and the performance of his duties. I have done that deliberately because I do not believe that this House is a forum in which those matters ought to be debated, more particularly, in the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has done so.

I return to a comment that I made earlier and that is that the attempt by the Leader of the Opposition by innuendo to implicate you, Mr Speaker, in these events as is to be deprecated. I repeat that in the strongest terms.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A little earlier the Minister said that I had in no way sought to implicate you. He is now accusing me of seeking to implicate you. The man is either a fool or he does not understand the contradiction.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order. The honourable gentleman will not continue to interject.

Mr VINER:

– I conclude by quoting two passages from the final part of your statement, Mr Speaker. You said:

Two fundamental points flow from the incident:-

Firstly, impartiality does not mean interfering with the administration by the Head of a Parliamentary Department to direct him to act or to forego from acting in any particular manner relating to staff in order to please or alternatively to avoid displeasing persons who hold a particular point of view. Inevitably some decisions will displease some people. That displeasure does not rob the decision of its honesty of purpose, that is, the decision to treat the transfer and its subsequent cancellation as a matter of internal administration.

Secondly, if a Speaker is to be subject to the allegation of party prejudice whenever a controversy arises -

That was clearly what the Leader of the Opposition was seeking to do in his speech- then the Parliament will ultimately get that which it asserts namely, a prejudiced Speaker. This would be a tragedy for our Parliamentary system.

I wholeheartedly endorse what you have said. You went on, Mr Speaker, to say:

This event emphasises the urgent need to adopt the Westminster convention of the independence of the Speaker. Then the Speaker will be seen to be impartial as well as being so.

We all know that that is a matter which is close to you and your ideas of the future of the Speakership of this Parliament, Mr Speaker. We all know that you have pursued it with vigour before, and because of the events which have happened you will pursue it with even greater vigour in the future.

Mr Bryant:

– May I ask a question, Mr Speaker? Is it possible for the members of this House at some future stage to have perhaps a non-partisan debate on the Library, its status and the subjects before it? Some issues which were raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), some issues which have been raised in general debate around this place and the question of what researchers ought to be able to obtain and ought not to be able to obtain are fundamental to the institution of Parliament. It would be worth while to have a wholehearted exchange in this House on that matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will raise the matter with the Leader of the House, who is responsible for the program of business.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a short statement on the matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I propose to say something myself. Certain things said by the Leader of the Opposition I regret, but he said them and I will not debate them. However for those people who have listened to the debate whether in this chamber or outside the chamber and who will not have seen my statement, I propose to read the statement which I tabled. I think it proper to put this matter into perspective. My statement reads:

The Librarian made the decision to transfer Mr Dunn. Likewise the Librarian made the decision to cancel the transfer. He was not influenced by any person in either decision nor did any person attempt to do so. Internal administration is his responsibility which is proper. Issues of policy and funding are for the Presiding Officers.

The Librarian had earlier discussed Mr Dunn with me in relation to Timor. Firstly, the committed attitude of Mr Dunn and whether its expression both nationally and internationally might be seen as inconsistent with the requirement of impartiality of the Library and whether Mr Dunn might be seen as using his position on the Library staff to influence policy.

Also, the Librarian had discussed with me the briefing of Mr Hayden which contained material obtained from O.N.A. He reported to me that Mr Dunn had breached two Library rules, namely, obtaining material from O.N.A. which was not published or free to be published, and disclosing the Member for whom the material was prepared.

Also the Librarian had informed me of the possibility of Mr Dunn being offered a University appointment in the context of granting him leave without pay.

On Wednesday 2nd April, 1980 the Librarian informed me in a written minute that he was transferring Mr Dunn to a position as a Special Projects Officer. He did not state the reasons. I accepted the transfer as an internal administrative decision.

On Tuesday 8th April. 1980 an enquiry was made to my office concerning the movement of Mr Dunn. Through a member of my staff I said that it was an internal decision of the Librarian.

On Wednesday 9th April, 1980 at about 7.50 a.m. I was telephoned on behalf of the A.B.C. programme, ‘A.M.’, with a request to speak on that programme commencing at 8.00 a.m. I suggested the President should be asked. The same person telephoned a few minutes after 8.00 a.m. and told me he could not contact the President. I agreed to speak because the matter had become a public issue and I believe that the Speaker should be completely open and frank about any matter concerning the Parliament and should not evade questions or exposure of issues.

I said unequivocally that the decision was made by the Librarian and that I had been informed by minute that it had occurred.

Several questions were asked of me in the form of, ‘Isn ‘t it true that . . .’, namely, that Mr Dunn had criticised both the ALP Government and the Liberal Government over Timor; an acknowledged expert and was very involved in the issue with very firm opinions. Also that Mr Dunn was involved in a controversy over a briefing of Mr Hayden including ONA material. I agreed.

Then came a question to the effect, ‘were these the reasons for his being transferred?’ My reply commenced, ‘1 should think that they were elements in the matter. I can ‘t say that they were the exclusive elements, nor can I say what other elements there were. But it is the responsibility of the Librarian to make sure that the chief of that section of the Library which is advising Members and Senators- from the House, three parties, in the Senate four parties plus an independent- that the Library is giving them the service that they ask for . . .’I did think they were elements and it would have been wrong to deny that I thought so. The very nature of the reply, ‘I should think that they were elements’, makes it clear the decision was not mine. However, when the programme was broadcast a couple of minutes later the questions preceding my answer were not broadcast. No part of the interview before my answer commencing, ‘I should think that they were elements’, was broadcast not even the question immediately preceding that answer. Instead, Mr Cosser said, ‘The Federal Parliamentary Library is the joint responsibility of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and this morning the Speaker, Sir Billy Snedden, conceded that Mr Dunn’s criticism of Government policy over East Timor and his briefing of Mr Hayden on Afghanistan were elements in his removal. He’s talking to Warwick Adderley.’ What Mr Cosser said is not what I was asked. The matters which I thought were elements were: Mr Dunn’s involvement in the Timor issue, not his ‘criticism of Government policy over East Timor’. The inclusion of the O.N.A. sourced material in the brief not the, briefing of Mr Hayden on Afghanistan ‘.

On Tuesday 10th April the ABC News reported, ‘Mr Dunn a former diplomat has been transferred to unspecified duties on orders of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sir Billy Snedden.’ Ron Sinclair in Canberra with the details: The Parliamentary Librarian, Mr Harold Weir, said this morning that Mr Dunn’s transfer was ordered because he breached rules relating to the supply of information from the Office of National Assessment. But he also claims Mr Dunn requested a transfer himself so that he could obtain a period of leave without pay. Sir Billy Snedden, however, has said he ordered Mr Dunn’s removal for a number of reasons including the way in which he supplied the O.N.A. information to Mr Hayden on the Afghanistan crisis and his well known criticism of Government policy relating to East Timor. Mr Dunn this morning categorically denied he had made any request for leave without pay. Today’s lunch time meeting of 140 Library staff has been called by the biggest Public Service Union, the ACOA. They are discussing possible action to be taken in light of claims by both Government and Opposition MPs that Mr Dunn’s transfer has a political motive. In Canberra Ron Sinclair. ‘

The italicised portions of the statement are false.

I believe those persons responsible for broadcasting the A.M.’ programme in not broadcasting the questions preceding my answer breached ordinary propriety. The tape on which the full interview was recorded has been destroyed. I was informed by the A.B.C. that the tape was destroyed 24 hours after its recording and that my request for the full tape was made one hour too late. The A.B.C. asserted that only one question was asked before my answer that it was the first question and that it had been written down before the interview, the text of this intended question (as provided by the A.B.C.) read, ‘But, has Mr Dunn been removed for his criticism of the Government’s policy over East Timor or his briefing of Mr Hayden over Afghanistan?’ It is clear where Mr Crosser’s text came from, i.e. the intended question- not what was actually said. If there had been only one question why was it not broadcast instead of Mr Crosser’s version.

I have been provided with the following documents by the Librarian, Mr Weir. They speak for themselves.

They include a memorandum from Mr Weir dated 14 April addressed to me. It reads:

Transfer of Mr J. S. Dunn

Legislative Research Specialist Grade5 (Local Designation: Director, Foreign Affairs Group)

Department of the Parliamentary Library

Mr James Stanley Dunn commenced duty in this Department on 14th August, 1969, as a Legislative Research Specialist Grade 3 under the supervision of the Director of the Defence Group. On 28th May, 1971, he was promoted to the position of Legislative Research Specialist Grade 5, and given the local designation of ‘Director, Foreign Affairs Group, Legislative Research Service’, Position No. 76.

On 13th March, 1980, Mr Dunn sent me a minute (Document A attached) in which he reported that a proposal for a Fellowship for twelve months at the University of Adelaide ‘now appears to be firming up’. He stated inter alia that he felt ‘the need for rejuvenation, as well as an opportunity to be away from the pace and pressures of work in Parliament House’.

On 9th April, 1 980, further to a discussion on 2nd April, he was handed a letter dated the previous day (Document B attached) in which it was confirmed that, with effect from Monday, 14th April, 1980, he would be transferred to duties as a Special Projects Officer, Position No. 120. The object of this move was to accommodate Mr Dunn’s wishes, consistent with overall policy of the Department on Leave Without Pay.

Today I received the attached letter (Document C) from Mr Dunn, in which he states, inter alia, that he wishes to remain in his present post.

As the proposed transfer was designed to meet Mr Dunn’s own situation, he will not be transferred now from his present position. However, he cannot be granted leave without pay while in that position.

No political pressure has been put on me in this matter or on any other Library or research matters by the Prime Minister or any member of the Cabinet.

Allegations of political motives in the transfer are quite wrong. You and Mr Dunn both know that I am of the opinion that Mr Dunn ‘s public activities and statements are inappropriate for a Parliamentary Officer in his position. At times I have asked him for explanations but I have not attempted to restrict his private activities, although his performance on duty and the duties he performs fall within the area of my responsibility.

H.G. WEIR

Commonwealth Parliamentary Librarian

I go on to record the three attachments to the memorandum. There is a second memorandum from the Librarian, Mr Weir, dated the same day, 14 April. That has six attachments. I propose to read the memorandum as distinct from the attachments. It is addressed to me and reads:

MR J.S. DUNN

REASONS FOR TRANSFER PROPOSAL

On 2nd April, 1980, I sent you a ‘Confidential- For Information’ statement about two matters (Document A1 enclosed). The first of those matters simply informed you that Mr Dunn would be transferred to a Special Duties position; it gave no reason for the transfer.

On 6th March, 1980, I sent you a note on statements made in Parliament the previous day about information alleged to have been given to the Research Service by Officers of the Office of National Assessments (Document B1 enclosed). In that statement I said that ‘use is made only of information which has been published or is free to be published ‘. I also said that ‘ I personally regard it as improper for any officer of this Department to seek information from any source when that information cannot be published. Furthermore, the name of a client for whom any information is required should not be revealed ‘.

The decision to transfer Mr Dunn to Special Duties was not related to any political matter, although, as set out in Document CI (enclosed), I have been concerned for a long period of time about Mr Dunn’s apparent lack of objectivity in his work. In Document C1 dated 19th November, 1979,I said that I was regarding the matter as a problem of training and supervision and I have continued to adopt that attitude.

Also, for your information, I enclose a copy of the minute which I signed this morning instructing that Mr Dunn would not be transferred today to the Special Duties position (Document D1). The reason for the original decision to transfer Mr Dunn was as set out in my letter to him on 8th April, 1980, which was in response to Mr Dunn’s minute to me of 13th March, 1980- both of these documents have already been sent to you.

In media discussions during the last few days, reference has been made to a draft Code of Conduct which is presently being considered by staff. A copy of that draft code is enclosed (Document E 1 ). The date of issue of that document followed a series of discussions which had been held by the Principal Officers of the Department since at least 18th September, 1979 (see Document F1 enclosed). The draft issued last week was drawn up by senior officers of the Legislative Research Service and drew heavily on guidelines recently issued by the Public Service Board for the conduct of the Public Service.

A similar communication has been sent to Mr President.

G. WEIR

Commonwealth Parliamentary Librarian

I will complete the reading of my statement:

Throughout my service as Speaker I have acted always with complete impartiality in the conduct of my duties. I have been represented by the A.B.C. as acting partially. Further, Members of this House and of the Senate in criticising the transfer of Mr Dunn have attributed political motives to the transfer.

Two fundamental points flow from the incident:-

Firstly impartiality does not mean interfering with the administration by the Head of a Parliamentary Department to direct him to act or to forego from acting in any particular manner relating to staff in order to please or alternatively to avoid displeasing persons who hold a particular point of view. Inevitably some decisions will displease some people. That displeasure does not rob the decision of its honesty of purpose, that is, the decision to treat the transfer and its subsequent cancellation as a matter of internal administration.

Secondly, if a Speaker is to be subject to the allegation of party prejudice whenever a controversy arises, then the Parliament will ultimately get that which it asserts namely, a prejudiced Speaker. This would be tragedy for our Parliamentary system.

This event emphasises the urgent need to adopt the Westminster convention of the independence of the Speaker. Then the Speaker will be seen to be impartial as well as being so.

I must say to the House that in the exercise of my duties not only must I act impartially but also must I accept criticism. That I will do and, in the exercise of my office, I have to forego the opportunity to debate the issue.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not intend to provide any further indulgence on the matter.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I submit to you, Sin Is it within the forms of the House and an impartial judgment of the House that those members of the Library Committee who have participated and been involved in matters to which you and both earlier speakers have referred and which are referred to in the documents which have been presented to the chamber by yourself are to be denied the opportunity at this critical time of expressing a point of view? If the matter is serious, if the House is to be impartial and if, as the Leader of the House tried to put falsely earlier, the Library Committee is to have any function whatsoever, I submit to you, Sir, that this is the appropriate time for you, as the Presiding Officer and as the Chairman of the Library Committee, to grant indulgence to those of us of the Library Committee who are concerned with a whole range of issues that are not covered in these documents and which are very pertinent to what has happened. So we respectfully seek your indulgence to make our contribution at this time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have granted indulgence for a period that has now extended over an hour.

Mr Morris:

– With respect, Mr Speaker, not to a member of the Committee.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will remain silent. I have granted indulgence which has lasted over an hour. It is true, of course, that I have taken some of that time myself. But if the honourable gentleman gives me an indication of how long he is likely to speak -

Mr Morris:

– Seven minutes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I propose to allow the honourable gentleman to speak, with indulgence, for seven minutes.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-I appreciate your indulgence, Mr Speaker. What I want to say is more in relation to the remarks made by the Leader of the House (Mr Viner). He opened his remarks by saying that there had been a clear and frank statement. Any member of the Library Committee knows full well what has been presented to the chamber is not a clear and frank statement and that in fact the documents presented and the statement made are more important for what they do not say rather than for what they do say. I have no argument with your statement as an individual, Mr Speaker. Rather I am concerned with the material that has been provided by the Parliamentary Librarian himself and by the information in total that has been provided to the Parliament.

What has been soiled in all of this exercise is the independence of the Parliamentary Library. I do not know whether this is a breach of the Standing Orders, but I am afraid, Mr Speaker, that I am going to have to do it: I am going to have to say to the Parliament and to the people some of the matters that have been discussed in the Library Committee itself because, if the Library Committee cannot report to the Parliament, it serves no purpose whatsoever. But the Leader of the House said that we have a Library Committee. Over a period of meetings, some members of the Library Committee, including Government members, have pressed for a definition of the role of the Committee. At the last meeting of the Committee this report No. 727- ‘Role of the Library Committee’- was presented. The Leader of the House sought to give the impression that the Committee had some role. Let me just read this one sentence from the report:

The motion by the Houses constituting the Committee gives it no powers.

So that is the beginning and the end of the story: The Library Committee has no powers whatsoever. The report, when dealing with the responsibility of the Parliamentary Librarian, has this to say:

The Parliamentary Librarian (as Permanent Head of the Department) is a First Division officer appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Presiding Officers. He is responsible, under the Public Service Act, (Section 25 ) for the general working of the Department and for all the business thereof. This includes advice to the Presiding Officers (in lieu of Minister) on all matters relating to the Depanment.

That means, Mr Speaker, that on this whole sub- .ject of Mr Dunn there would have been a regular interchange of information and a regular flow of advice to the Presiding Officers from the Parliamentary Librarian himself. It is not good enough for the Librarian or for the Parliament to be presented with a selective amount of material on this subject because behind all this debacle is the running sore of the powers of the Library Committee and the dissatisfaction with the Library staff itself.

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that at the last meeting of the Library Committee a Government member raised the matter of the accommodation of parliamentary staff in these buildings, and a rather sharp exchange followed. We hoped that in some way at the end of the Committee’s meeting we had resolved the matter. But for two years, throughout the life of this Parliament, it has been quite evident at Committee meetings that there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction within the Library itself. With all respect to Mr Weir, the Librarian, it is very clear to me, reading through these documents and knowing what I know as a member of the Committee and having participated in the discussions of the Committee- and if we go back and read through the minutes of the Committee we will find reference to the problems of the Committee- that throughout there is one theme and one theme only: And, that is, Mr Weir’s problem: His dissatisfaction with, his personal disaffection for, Mr Dunn. I have never spoken to Mr Dunn in my life other than to say ‘Good-day’ or ‘How are you?’ as I passed him in the corridor. I have had nothing whatsoever to do with him. I am trying to judge this issue as a member of the Committee and simply on the basis of the information provided there. That information, as I say, misrepresents the situation and is inadequate.

I make a plea here for the Library as an institution of the Parliament, free from the influence of the Parliamentary Librarian who seeks to impose upon the Library his personal value judgments. There is not one iota of evidence in these documents of a breach of confidentiality. There is not one iota. There is a reference to the need for confidentiality. There is a reference to the need for objectivity. But where is the breach of objectivity that has occurred? Where is it? There are 30 or 40 pages of material and ample time in terms of numbers of days for the Librarian to have presented the information, to have presented the evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever and I put it to the House that what we have seen here is a personality clash, almost a vendetta. I say that deliberately because, having read through these documents and having sat through meetings of the Library Committee, it is very clear what has been going on. What has happened in this case is that perhaps in some way you, Mr Speaker, have been dragged inadvertently into the matter. I cannot decipher whether that is so. I am not placing the blame and the responsibility upon you; but what has been happening is very clear to me. The theme, the stream, is running straight through these documents. The Library itself is answerable to this Parliament.

Those honourable members who may want to look at the minutes of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party in the latter pan of last year- I raised the matter in the Library Committee some time ago- will find details of a decision reached on the need to appoint a standing committee of the -Parliament, with an elected chairman answerable to the Parliament, so that power and control over the Library would be taken out of the hands of the Presiding Officers. I realise that my disclosure of what happened in that Committee breaches tradition, but that fact does not concern me. That decision, which represents a bipartisan view of the Library Committee- a view that has been evident at meeting after meetingsets out what must be done.

Because of my undertaking as to time, I wish to raise two matters only. One relates to the paragraph headed ‘Published or Publishable’ on page 2 of the code of conduct of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, which was attached to Mr Speaker’s statement. To suggest that that is followed is nonsense. Anyone with any experience in this House, who has made any request to the Library for information, knows that what is set out there is not adhered to; it does not operate in practice. It might exist in the mind of some member of the Public Service or the Parliamentary Librarian but is not the practice. If I wish to have certain material I go to the staff of the Library and am asked: ‘Where do you suggest that some information might be available?’ I have indicated private company sources and have also directed the staff to industry sources. The staff has made phone calls to still further sources of which I was not aware. All that information is drawn together because I have requested a case supporting a specific objective. Rightly, responsibly and honestly the officers of the Library have prepared that information and have used it. To try to mislead the Australian community into thinking that what is set out in the paragraph ‘Published or Publishable ‘ is what happens in the Parliamentary Library is to be guilty of a total misrepresentation.

The other matter that I wish to discuss is the paper prepared by Mr Dunn entitled ‘The Crisis over Afghanistan’. To clarify this whole issue, so we shall have some evidence -

Mr Hayden:

– That was prepared for me, on request.

Mr MORRIS:

– Yes. The paper which appears to be the source of the contention is headed, ‘The Crisis over Afghanistan- some considerations based on specific points raised by member. Prepared at request. Foreign Affairs Group 12 February 1980’. I ask the Leader of the House, in his generosity and in the exercise of his wisdom, to agree to that paper being tabled so that at least we shall have some evidence from which to discern where breaches of confidentiality have occurred, if indeed they did occur- I do not believe that they did- and where breaches of objectivity have occurred, if they did. We do not accept that they did.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the honourable gentleman seeking leave to table a document?

Mr MORRIS:

– Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? I will defer the matter of leave until the Minister has had a chance to peruse the document.

Mr Viner:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have had no chance to see it.

Mr MORRIS:

– The paper, as I was about to point out, was prepared at the specific request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden). The details of the request are set out at the top of the paper and, for the information of the Parliament and the Australian community I seek leave to have it preferably incorporated, but if not tabled. It is not a long paper. Those are the points that I wished to make. I appreciate your granting indulgence, Mr Speaker, despite the time that has been taken in discussing the matter, and await the approval of the Leader of the House for the incorporation of the document.

Mr SPEAKER:

-It has been indicated to me that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) wishes to make a short statement by indulgence. It is the practice to call from each side of the House alternately so I will grant a short indulgence to the honourable member.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-Thank you, Mr Speaker. At the outset I should disclose an interest in this matter. I have no hesitation in stating publicly that I have been, and continue to be, a personal friend of Mr Dunn. It is appropriate to repeat in the House what I have said outside it, and to express an opinion which I believe would be shared by members on both sides of the House and on both sides in another place; namely, that Mr Dunn is a man of honesty and integrity, an officer of the Parliament who performs his duties with the highest degree of professionalism that one could expect of any officer.

Having said that Mr Speaker, I want also to place on record that I believe that you performed your duties as Speaker with the highest degree of impartiality that it is possible to bring to that office. That is not simply my view. I believe that it is fair to say, and indeed members opposite know it to be the fact, that that is the view, as was indicated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), of Mr Dunn himself. I believe that that fact ought to be placed on record at this time.

I wish to refer, though not in detail, to allegations which were prevalent in the Press last week that the removal of Mr Dunn from his position was politically motivated and, in particular, that it was in some way motivated by the Executive Government. These matters concerned me sufficiently to cause me to travel to Canberra last Friday for the express purpose of speaking with Mr Dunn. I spoke to him at length on Friday afternoon, and again on Sunday and this morning. The point that I want to make- a member of this Parliament whose integrity I value greatly was with me when I had one of these discussions with Mr Dunn- is that there is no evidence at all to support the proposition that Mr Dunn was moved from his position as a result of a political initiative. I said that publicly and it was printed in the Canberra Times on Sunday. I am convinced, for what it is worth, that there was a misunderstanding between Mr Weir and Mr Dunn. But let me say without any fear of recrimination whatsoever that if I believed for one moment that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) or any Minister or member of the Executive Government had brought in any way pressure to bear to have Mr Dunn removed, and if I were able to find evidence to substantiate that fact, I would not have the slightest hesitation in condemning such an action.

I disagreed with a number of the statements made today in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, but I do at least commend him for not suggesting for one moment that Mr Dunn ‘s being moved was politically motivated. The Leader of the Opposition was guilty of one slip of the tongue which, in fairness to him and to you, Mr Speaker, ought to be corrected. He did say that you, Mr Speaker, had said that Mr Dunn had breached two Library rules, namely obtaining material from the Office of National Assessments which was not published or free to be published, and disclosing the member for whom the material was prepared. I draw attention to the fact, confirmed by Mr Dunn, that Mr

Speaker had never said any such thing; that it was the Librarian who had said that Mr Dunn had breached two Library rules and who set them out. I am sure that earlier today when the Leader of the Opposition said that it was you, Mr Speaker, who had said that, it was a genuine and honest error on his part. The Leader of the Opposition would know that you could make no public comment at all on whether Mr Dunn had breached any rules of the Library, for the very simple reason that the right of appeal against the Librarian’s decision lies to you and to Mr President.

It is Mr Dunn’s publicly and privately stated wish that this matter be not politicised. It is his wish that it not be the subject of continuing public debate. He wishes the matter to die down and to enable him to resume his duties, to enable his family to have a little peace and tranquility after what has been an extremely difficult week for him. I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition, who I believe has said that he too admires and respects Mr Dunn, on behalf of all who admire and respect Mr Dunn, out of deference to the wishes of Mr Dunn, not to prolong a public debate of a political nature. I make that point because Mr Dunn has made it both publicly and privately.

In conclusion, I wish to be regarded in this Parliament as one member, among many, who supports Mr Dunn to the hilt but who would wish to be dissociated with the allegation that you, Mr Speaker, have been in any way less than impartial in the performance of your duties in this matter.

Mr VINER (Stirling-Leader of the House)-I decline to grant leave for the tabling of the document referred to by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). It would be in breach of a long-standing convention of this House, which I believe has been wisely observed, designed to maintain the objectivity, integrity and impartiality of the advice received from members of the parliamentary staff.

Mr Morris:

– We wish to register our disappointment.

page 1714

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

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

Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Bill 1980.

Customs Amendment Bill 1980.

page 1714

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill 1980.

Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Amendment Bill 1980.

Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1980.

Customs Amendment Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 980.

Senate (Representation of Territories) Amendment Bill 1980.

page 1714

IRAN

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Foreign Minister to observe the convention of collective responsibility in his pre-empting Cabinet in relation to Australia ‘s response to the crisis in Iran.

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

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– We read yesterday that the Cabinet has decided that it will take certain action in response to the request by the President of the United States of America in respect of the more recent crisis in Iran- ‘more recent’ meaning that there has been no release of the United States Embassy hostages there. The significance of what we are putting before the Parliament today is that we could have indicated that position to the nation last week because the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) indicated in advance his views as to what the Cabinet should decide. I know that I have to start this speech in the narrow confines of what a Cabinet ought to decide as against what a Minister ought to say, but there are strict rules in relation to this situation. In the latter part of what I want to say I will indicate how we in the Opposition see the problems that the Government faces.

We say that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is virtually the Foreign Minister and that, particularly in respect of Afghanistan, he has gone all the way with the Americans. That policy is not getting the support of the Australian people. In fact at least 70 per cent of the Australian people disapprove of the Government’s policy in respect of Afghanistan, particularly as it applies to athletes being urged- in fact threatened- not to participate in the Olympic Games. When we come to the question of Iran, the question is put: Will we go all the way with the USA on Iran? The answer is: No, we will not. We must commend that situation, but we must ask how it has been arrived at. Mr Deputy

Speaker, I submit to you that the reason is that the Foreign Minister- we will give him marks- is desperate to retrieve for the Government some semblance of credibility. He is not entitled to do that, and to exempt himself from the odium of having to carry the load for the Prime Minister, by bypassing the Cabinet. He cannot do that.

What is the evidence that he has done that? The evidence is that last week the United States sought Australia’s help on a number of matters relating to trade embargoes, to the severing of diplomatic relations and also, as was reported, to the expelling of Iranian diplomats. What happened immediately? Our distinguished Foreign Minister raced into the Press with the headline: Peacock wants to keep ties with Iran’. We can understand that, but he is a member of the Cabinet. It is not a matter for the Foreign Minister to indicate the Cabinet’s decision in advance. That is the subject of this debate and, of course, we will try to elaborate on the reasons for his actions. Under the headline to which I have referred there appears the following:

The Minister for Foreign Affairs . . . declared his firm personal opposition to President Carter’s call for Australia to sever diplomatic relations with Iran.

In airing his views … he created a prickly political situation for Cabinet, which meets … on Monday . . .

The position is especially sensitive because several ministers are known to favour positive support for Mr Carter’s latest bid to free the 50 American hostages in Tehran, now in their 1 59th day of captivity . . .

The Minister then expressed his view that we ought to have a presence there. He also said, of course, that Cabinet may decide otherwise. The significant point is that we know from last week what his views are and that we have learnt as recently as today that Cabinet backed Peacock. It could do very little else. We must understand that if he had not said what he said last week, perhaps the Cabinet would not have backed Peacock but might have backed Fraser. I understand that I have to say that it would have backed the Foreign Minister and not the Prime Minister, but I have used their names so that the listening audience can understand. A very significant point is that the Foreign Minister did not content himself with an odd burst in the Press. He also appeared on Nationwide where, in full flight, he indicated the veneer of unity of purpose amongst Government members. But the fact that he said that to say it was all the way on Afghanistan and all the way on Iran was a silly remark, his own expression -

Mr Peacock:

– All the way with the USA as an All the way with LBJ’ type of thing?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-No. It was ‘All the way with USA’. The Minister was perfectly right when he said that that was silly. The only thing about it is that I think he was disagreeing with his Prime Minister on that position. On or about 8 April the Foreign Minister said that he would not enter into a trade embargo against Iran unless it could be effective in the sense that other nations would join in. I do not know what the people now listening think of that position when his Government is saying, of course, that the Olympians are not to go to Moscow and that that will be the most effective action in respect of Afghanistan. But when it comes to Iran the Government says that action in respect of trade will not be effective. This shows the great lack of credibility at present with regard to foreign affairs. In our posture towards people in the United States who are having difficulty we ought to be acting from a leading position and not from a position of servility by saying that we will do whatever the United States thinks we ought to do. This message boy arrangement that has been carried on for the last three or four months whereby we say we will do whatever we are asked to do is not helping the hostages in Iran. It does not help the Government either. It does nothing for the credibility of Cabinet when Ministers have to go outside their collective responsibility and make statements in advance to preempt what Cabinet will do.

The two statements that the Minister made in advance were that he would not sever diplomatic relations and that he would not have trade embargoes. The cynics can say that, of course, he will not have trade embargoes because that might upset members of the Country Party. They would not even allow embargoes on trade with Afghanistan; they are prepared to stop the athletes, but they will not stop the wool or the wheat. That is the cynical exercise which public opinion is so much against and which raises the question of whether the Government has any credibility.

I come back to what we are talking about, which is Cabinet responsibility. We make the point that the fact that the Foreign Minister has virtually had to breach the important principle of collective responsibility of Cabinet so that Australia ‘s response to the Iranian crisis will not reach the absurdities of what happened in respect of Afghanistan demonstrates the major differences between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. Honourable members will remember that the Afghanistan crisis was of such intensity that the Prime Minister said that we ought perhaps to be thinking of war within three days of its commencing. Of course, everybody deplores the invasion. The situation is not as intense as that, but that is the escalation that the Prime Minister gave to it.

Let us talk about the Cabinet’s collective responsibility, and the Minister’s failure to observe that responsibility. The essence of that responsibility is as follows: For all that passes in Cabinet, each member of it who does not resign is absolutely and irretrievably responsible and has no right afterwards to say that he agreed in one case to a compromise while in another he was persuaded by one of his colleagues.

There are a few precedents for what should happen to Ministers who disregard this responsibility. In 1962, almost 20 years ago- obviously there have been some difficulties since then- the then Minister for Air, Mr Bury, was forced to resign because he stated that the likely effect on Australia of Britain’s entering the European Economic Community had been greatly exaggerated. Mr Bury was not even a member of the Cabinet. Yet the Prime Minister, the distinguished Mr Menzies, as he then was, described his statement as being incompatible with ministerial responsibility and Cabinet solidarity. I would think that what the Minister for Foreign Affairs has done is much more serious than what Mr Bury was trying to do. In 1971 a former Prime Minister, Mr Gorton as he then was, was forced to resign by the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) because of a series of articles which Mr Gorton wrote concerning his experiences as Prime Minister. The letter he received from the right honourable member for Lowe started with ‘Dear John’ and suggested that he resign because to talk about controversial matters pre-empts Cabinet decisions. The right honourable member for Lowe said then that he believed that such conduct made the Cabinet unworkable.

But the point we are making in this situation is: Where is our foreign policy helping the United States. I think the Minister would agree with comments that were made in Newsweek before this incident took place. They were made by George Ball, a former Under-Secretary of State. Mr Ball talked about the political climate in America at the time. He talked about men who are leaders and men who are politicians. He works on the basis that a great amount of leadership is required to help the hostages. However, he says that if one is just trying to get votes in the primaries that are being conducted in America one is just a low-grade politician. We ought to be indicating where we can help the Americans in Afghanistan and Iran.

The situation is tragic for the hostages. But it is well known that the Parliament in Iran has not yet assembled and that is will not assemble until May or June. It is well known that Bani-Sadr, the Iranian Prime Minister, is somewhat sympathetic to suggestions that the hostages be released. On that basis how important is it that we should have an Ambassador in Iran at the highest level, thus clearly indicating to the appropriate authorities in Iran as and when the Parliament assembles the Australian point of view. But what have we done? We are hitting them with a feather, one might say, by announcing that we are not going to appoint an ambassador, that we will have a charge d’affaires putting our case. We are also going to remove the trade commissioner. We are not going to remove the trade- that is the money- but we will remove the commissioner. What will the Government of Iran think of that? Will it help the hostages one bit? Not at all. Will it do any damage to our trade? Not a bit. We are trading furiously with Iran in respect of wool, wheat, live sheep and metals. We are talking about a million dollar proposition. We are not going to jeopardise that but we will teach Iran a lesson. We will remove the ambassador and we will remove the trade commissioner.

I want to support what I think the Foreign Minister is about. He would be in agreement with the sentiments expressed by George Ball. We should be saying to our friends in the United States: ‘Listen, watch what you are doing’. Ball makes the point in the Newsweek article:

There is no way we can rescue the captives by military means; we would only get them killed … we must do everything possible to bring back the hostages safe- even if that means pursuing the difficult course of doing nothing.

That is the position. We can give to our ally advice similar to that contained in the Newsweek article to which I referred which was printed well before the President’s call was made.

Ronald Reagan demanded that Jimmy Carter do something. He said that the President had dillied and dallied long enough over this issue. Any political opponent can think that is a cheap way to make a bit of progress and I would suggest that Reagan might be thought to have done that. Bush, another opponent of Carter, attacked the President for a policy of appeasement, backing and filling, and urged him to break diplomatic relations with Tehran and to deport the Iranian diplomats. That was done before Carter made the announcement. That comes back to what Ball said about there being a great deal of difference between leaders, distinguished statesmen and those who take a low-grade political stance. The low-grade political stance has been agreed to by the Australian Government. I do not think it is credible for the Government to suggest that we are going to do something effective for the hostages in Iran and still carry on trade. The Australian people will not accept that. All we are going to do is leave a charge d ‘affaires to represent us.

An intelligent appraisal of what should have happened would have been for the Minister last week to say: ‘Look, I think Cabinet ought to be considering the matter and it will be on the basis that we are going to do what we think is best’. But he should not have pre-empted the situation by saying: ‘My God, unless I race out now and say I will not have a trade embargo we might get one because, you know, our Prime Minister is in that position and I really do not want to sever diplomatic relations with Iran but I had better say something about it because the Prime Minister might stand right over me’. That is the fundamental weakness at the present time.

In summary, our foreign policy is in tatters. We have a Foreign Minister who is completely subservient to a Prime Minister and we have a Prime Minister who again has an obsession with confrontation instead of an understanding of moderation. He does not clearly understand that we have failed miserably in our policy towards the Russians and Afghanistan. We are miserably putting all the blame on athletes as if they can help in this tragic situation. But it is nonsense to come along with this feather-like approach and to say that we are not going to re-appoint the ambassador to Iran, that we are going to withdraw the trade commissioner and that that really will help the hostages.

Mr Birney:

– What would you have done?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I would have kept our ambassador there. I would say that is important. It is important that we talk to people like Bani-Sadr about how we can relieve the situation because, as the Minister knows, we have now consolidated a greater anti-American ferocity in Iran by this action. We may have jeopardised the lives of the hostages because our action can certainly embarrass Prime Minister Bani-Sadr in his attempts to get an effective solution as and when Parliament meets. So do not always bc so subservient.

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

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– This really is the most extraordinary, abysmal, ill-conceived and incomprehensible matter of public importance that has been thrust into the Parliament in the time that I have been here which is considerably longer than anyone in the chamber at the present time other than the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James). The real thrust of this matter of public importance is not, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) said, my allegedly pre-empting Cabinet. His own words were that the real thrust is where our foreign policy is helping the United States of America. So this matter of public importance is just a facade because the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows I did not pre-empt the Cabinet. If this was a court of law I would not even be on my feet. The situation would not even have to be answered. There would be absolutely no case to answer.

I say this, while I am Foreign Minister and therefore responsible for the formulation, the advising and the articulation of foreign policy I will not change one iota the manner in which I go about the formulation, the advising and the articulation of that foreign policy.

The way in which I have conducted my portfolio has been absolutely supported by the Cabinet. The members of the Cabinet could have decided otherwise. They had options before them, but they did not. They supported the viewpoint that I put to them. I do not know where the honourable member can say that the Cabinet was pre-empted. Indeed, as I indicated publicly, among the things that the United States had asked for was, first, the withdrawal of an ambassador and, secondly, the giving of consideration to the breaking of diplomatic relations. I did not favour the latter and neither did the Cabinet, but the option was there. So this is just cosmetics, a facade for members of the Opposition to get up and align themselves with a viewpoint that I find quite extraordinary in regard to the tragic situation of the hostages.

We are talking about the lives of human beings who have been incarcerated in an embassy for five and a half months. There is a government responsible for them. They were representing the United States Government. The United States Government has pleaded with the international community to work with it to assist in the release of these hostages. This is not some cheap debating stunt. The Government’s view has been one of firm and unequivocal support for all that the United States has been seeking to do and as she tightens the screw so are we doing the same. It is therefore necessary, where we felt we could play an additional role on the question of retaining a presence in Tehran, to indicate, and the Cabinet indicated, that we could play a role as a channel of communication. The Americans have accepted this as I knew they would.

It calls on me, therefore, with the attack that has been made on the Government’s policy, to analyse what is the Opposition’s policy. I regret to say this, because it is only in recent days that I have discovered that the policy of the Australian Labor Party mirrors that of the Iranian Government, or the Iranian Government so-called. Let me demonstrate this. I heard what I thought was a moderate interview with the Opposition spokesman on foreign policy, Senator Wriedt, on AM this morning. But then I looked at a statement that he issued on behalf of the Australian Labor Party on 9 April following the request of the United States to the Australian Government for assistance. Three critical things in that Press statement are worthy of quoting now. The first point is that Senator Wriedt, on behalf of the Opposition, said:

The Federal Government should immediately appoint and despatch to Tehran a new ambassador to replace Ambassador M. L. Johnston who left last month on completion of his two-year posting there.

He went on to talk about the need not to put relations at risk through economic or diplomatic sanctions. He was opposed, therefore, to economic sanctions and he was opposed to diplomatic sanctions. He said that we ought to wait- as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said today- for the Iranian Parliament to meet to determine the question of the hostages.

Let me put these points to honourable members. Point one: The request of the United States was for the withdrawal of the ambassador. We have done that. The Iranian Government opposes that; the Australian Labor Party opposes that. Point two: The Australian Labor Party says that it opposes economic sanctions or any sort of constraint on trade with Iran. So does the Iranian Government. Point three; The Australian Labor Party says that we should wait for the Iranian Parliament to resume before the hostage question is dealt with. That is precisely the position of the Iranian Revolutionary Council. The Iranian position is that decisions on the hostages can be made only by the elected Parliament. But the reality is that we have no assurance whatsoever as to when that Parliament might meet or what its decision would be. This situation is intolerable.

There is opposite a mirror image of the disastrous, cruel and inhumane policies of the Iranian Revolutionary Council. The Opposition should not come in here with a facade about preempting a Cabinet decision. What allegedly amounts to a policy has been taken apart today and presented to the Australian people for what it is, a fraud and a mirror reflection of the policies of a government that is treating accredited representatives in the most inhumane way in breach of fundamental international law and international conventions. Honourable members opposite have forgotten that.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– We will give you that.

Mr PEACOCK:

-The honourable member will give me that; this was a fraud and, therefore, that he is merely mirroring a Revolutionary Council viewpoint. I think it is appalling that he should sit there and concede that he is as one with those who hold themselves out as the administrators in Iran. Our actions have been appreciated by the United States Government because it has been striving for the release of the hostages. The stronger measures that have been enunciated and put into effect by the United States and some of her allies to date would have been taken earlier except that the United States Government, acting with great restraint through the United Nations as well as through diplomatic means, sought to influence the moderate elements of the Revolutionary Council that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to earlier. It received undertakings that the hostages would be moved from the embassy to government control. They were not able to deliver the goods. After two months this was not done and the time came for the Americans to act in the manner that they have.

The hostages have been held for nearly five and a half months. There were two months of intense negotiations and discussions and no progress was achieved despite all the earlier assurances from the Iranian authorities that the transfer of the hostages could occur. These assurances were just not honoured. So the Opposition today should not be putting in this place the Iranian Revolutionary Council line that we should wait for the Iranian Parliament to meet in a tragedy of this dimension. This is one of the worst breaches of fundamental international law and international discourse that has occurred this century. What has the Government’s view been? The Government’s view has shown consistent support and sympathy for the hostages and consistent support for the United States President in all that he has been seeking to achieve.

We have been asked not to replace an ambassador because that is an important diplomatic protest, and that we have done. We were asked to give consideration to the withdrawal of the diplomatic mission. We believed there could be an effective channel of communication and a form of information flowing to us by leaving our mission there. That is accepted by the United States. We have been asked to restrain our trade, and that we have done already. As tangible evidence of this is that instead of leaving a trade commissioner there whose fundamental duty was to promote trade, we have withdrawn him. I have also indicated that we are keeping the matter under review. The harsh reality is that this Government could no longer ignore what was transpiring in Iran. We indicated that the Government of Iran could no longer hide behind the fiction that a group of so-called students was responsible for what was happening. The responsibility belongs to the Iranian Government.

To sum up, let the students study and let the Government govern. This is not occurring. The Government of Iran has claimed a superior morality. That claim can have no credence so long as it is associated with the gross debasement of international standards that we have been witnessing over the last five and a half months. In proposing this pretentiously worded resolution, that which the Opposition has not been able to support- in speaking to it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition recognised that it did not address the real issue at all. In saying that the real thrust of the matter was what our foreign policy was in helping the United States, Opposition members have revealed themselves not as those who would assist human beings incarcerated in an embassy of a country with which we are allied. Opposition members have been mouthing platitudes in their statements which are mirror images of those of the Revolutionary Council. This is a harsh reality.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Why not leave the ambassador there?

Mr PEACOCK:

– The reason we did not leave the ambassador there was that we were prepared to indicate to the Iranian Government that it was deserving of censure. One well knows that for centuries in diplomatic activity this has been a form of protest which has been widely recognised. As I have said, the continued holding of these hostages is cruelly inhumane. It actually amounts to an attempt to conduct relations between states on the basis of government sanctioned kidnapping and blackmail and. as such, it strikes at the very heart of civilised discourse between countries, The rules of that discourse have been painstakingly built up over centuries and they have served all countries well. They have not been swept aside in the manner in which the rules have been swept aside by the Iranian Council on this occasion. Yet Opposition members are prepared not merely to support but to reflect the attitudes of that Council in the policies they enunciate. They ought to be condemned for all they are standing for on this issue. They should stand up to support what the United States is seeking to do in striving for the release of its hostages, stand up to support what the Australian Government is seeking to do with our friends and allies on this matter. We are not on our own. Members of the Third World support us. Members of the Western alliance support us. The only people who do not are members of the Australian Labor Party, and they stand condemned for it.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-We have been treated to a great theatrical performance today, almost in the class of the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). The Minister (Mr Peacock) has given us far more profile than principle in this debate. When the Minister for Foreign Affairs alleges that there is opposition sympathy for the line of the Revolutionary Council in Iran, it is false and he knows that this line is false. He has also misled the House on a very important matter. For example and I quote as I wrote down exactly what he said:

We have been asked to restrain our trade and this we have done.

The stated evidence for this is the withdrawal of our trade commissioner. But what are the facts? In the financial year 1978-79 Australia’s exports to Iran amounted to $ 1 1 5,904,000. For the seven months to January 1980- not a full year- they amount to $120,492,000. In other words there is an increase of 22.7 per cent in the value of our exports to Iran so far in this financial year and the year has months to go. The Minister says:

We have been asked to restrain our trade and this we have done.

If we keep on restraining our trade at this rate, we will have trebled our dealings with Iran by the end of the financial year. What he said is simply not true. I ask leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table of Australia’s exports to Iran in 1 978-79 and in the financial year to January 1980.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-We are witnessing the first stages in the Foreign Minister’s campaign for the prime ministership in 1983. The Foreign Minister works on the basis that the coalition will lose the 1980 election and that, immediately thereafter, the Liberal Party will make its present Leader pay the penalty. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) will then contest the leadership against the present Treasurer (Mr Howard) and he will win narrowly. Because he sees the present Liberal leadership as a national disaster- he is perfectly correct there- he wants to distance himself and do his own thing. As a result Australia has a highly personalised Peacock-style foreign policy. I must say at once that in many ways it is a rational and a far-sighted policy, far more enlightened and less reactionary than a foreign policy would be that was proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The only way that the Minister can ensure that Cabinet follows his line,’ rather than that of the Prime Minister, is to put in his bid first and to go public. It is the only way. I can understand the Foreign Minister’s reluctance to involve his Cabinet colleagues in determining foreign policy because they would only muck it up. There is a growing inconsistency between our trade policies and our diplomatic policies. The Foreign Minister wants to retain relations with Iran because he wants to maintain the possibility of exerting influence. On the other hand, the Prime Minister wants to break relations and follow the lead of President Carter.

It should be pointed out that for Australia and for the United States this is an election year. President Carter is obviously in great domestic difficulty politically. Public opinion which at first supported him for his moderate stance over Iran is now turning against him. There is every indication that the policy of restraint will make him lose the Democratic primary which will be held in the very vital State of Pennsylvania in the next couple of days. So we have this sequence of events. The first event is the request by President Carter that, in the event of the United States changing its line on Iran and adopting a tougher policy, its allies support it. The second event in the sequence is the Minister’s statement indicating his personal view that we ought not to go all the way; in other words, that there be some moderation of policy but essentially we would retain our diplomatic relations and try to apply pressure in Iran as far as we could. Then, at the third event, was the Cabinet decision yesterday. It could only have been to head off an adverse decision by Cabinet that the Minister involved himself. In so doing, he placed the very important principle of Cabinet solidarity at risk.

If the Minister had not done a solo turn, and if he had been followed by other Ministers, we could have had a situation like this: Suppose that the Minister for Defence intervened, following the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and said: ‘I take a different view. If the United States is to have some form of possible military intervention we ought to indicate our willingness to be in it’. One might argue that, if it is legitimate for the Foreign Minister to get in first with his point of view, it is legitimate for another Minister to get into an area related to his professional competence. What if a third Minister, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), had intervened before the Cabinet decision and said ‘Australia’s trade with Iran is vital. We should on no account follow the United States’. This could go on until all 27 Ministers had gone into the act. This would have destroyed the principle of Cabinet solidarity which, is a very important part of the whole constitutional framework of this country.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. In view of what the honourable member has said, would you ask the honourable member for Reid to tell us again how Mr Whitlam never told his Cabinet about the sell out of East Timor?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-At this stage the point is not whether the policy advanced by the Foreign Minister is a good policy rather than a bad policy- certainly I would say that it is on the side of the angels rather than on the other side- but the question is whether it is right for the Foreign Minister to pre-empt a decision which should be made by the Cabinet. The Foreign Minister has resisted from the outset the breaking of diplomatic relations with Iran. The Prime Minister has pressed for the breaking of diplomatic relations. It is true that he has not gone public but all the dogs in Canberra are barking about it. The result was a compromise announced after yesterday’s Cabinet meeting, a downgrading of relations, a non-replacement of the Ambassador but not a break. The compromise averted what would have been an open breach between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister which would, if persisted in, have led to the Foreign Minister’s resignation. But what was the alternative?

Mr Carlton:
Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Honourable members never worry about principle and that is what the word ‘if involves. Honourable members must look at the alternatives. We can only look at alternatives if we raise the question ‘if’. The honourable member for Mackellar opposite should understand that. Moral outrages do not really worry this Government if protesting would run the risk of costing it something. We had a particularly nauseating example of this in Question Time today. There are three different positions in Cabinet. First there is the National Country Party line which is: Do anything you like at a diplomatic level so long as you do not hurt trade. The second line, the Fraser position, is: Hard line diplomatic confrontation following the United States but maintain and expand trade if possible. The Prime Minister is conscious that it is an election year in Australia as it is in the United States. The third line, the Peacock line, is: Maintain diplomatic links in order to maximise access to information, exercise pressure if possible, and resolve problems by conciliation and reason.

We are abysmally badly informed about the nature of the Iranian revolution, its motivation, driving force, aims and objectives, the nature of the differences between the students, the Shi-ite clergy, including the Ayatollah Khomeini, the secular moderate politicians including President Bani-Sadr and the Foreign Minister Qotbzadeh, and the possible influence of the incoming parliament not yet installed and whose views are impossible to assess. There are worrying implications in the apparent breach of the principle of Cabinet solidarity, that is, that an individual Minister may go it alone, may provide a personal policy of brinksmanship and then, in effect, force a reluctant Cabinet to adopt the view of a single

Minister rather than face the public embarrassment, especially in an election year, of being dumped, repudiated and forced to resign. It is significant that the policy adopted is not the policy that was stated on the Nationwide program by the Foreign Minister. It is not so clear cut. It is more of a compromise position. That is patent. In the first seven months of this financial year, we have had a large escalation of trade with Iran, the most curious thing of all being that the largest increase has been in wheat, and it is quite clear that the trade boycott of the United States has led to more trading in wheat from Australia.

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

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

-I have heard the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) perform better in this House, especially on a subject such as this. We are debating the future of 50 hostages, men and women who are incarcerated in the United States Embassy in Tehran. They have been there for 163 days- nearly three months- and all we have had from this Opposition during that period has been this puny effort today suggesting that the honourable member for Kooyong, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) somehow or other has overstepped the mark in telling the Australian people what he as Foreign Minister believes should be done. I recall when I was a member of the Opposition- the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) should recall when he was a Minister- the shambles we saw when some 27 Ministers, an absolute gaggle in the then Labor Government, were unable to come up with any serious policy options on Timor because they were continually arguing among themselves. For any member of the Australian Labor Party to come into this House and make the allegation which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made today is absolutely absurd.

The reality of the situation is this: Cabinet responsibility is exactly what it states. There is not one Minister in this Government who is not prepared to state his views as the Minister who is responsible to the Government and to this Parliament for the administration of a specific area of policy. What we have seen, however, as far as the Opposition is concerned, is total support for the Iranian position as recently formulated. Today we have heard allegations against the credibility of the Carter Administration yet we are told that the Austraiian Government somehow or other is not supporting the Carter Administration. When I read the words of the spokesman on foreign policy for the Labor Party, Senator Wriedt, I cannot help believing that what he has said with regard to Iran is in fact what he thought he should have said in regard to Afghanistan and the Olympic boycott. He issued an extraordinary document in Hobart on 9 April. This is what he said:

The Australian Government should consider very carefully any proposal to sever diplomatic relations or impose trade embargos with Iran.

That was exactly the policy adopted by the BaniSadr Government in Iran, the same Government which in recent weeks has demonstrably failed to take over the responsibility for the hostages offered to it by the Ayatollah Khomeini and to assume from the students, the militant students who have surrounded and taken over the American Embassy, the security of the American hostages. I think it is amazing that the United States people have for so long demonstrated such absolute control in a situation which is fraught with considerable danger not only to those unlucky people who are the hostages but also to the peace and security of the Middle East, if not the entire world. We know the responsibility which the Americans have in this area. The hostages are citizens of the United States. If they were citizens of Australia I wonder what members of the Opposition would be saying today. I suppose they would be standing up in this chamber and telling the Government: ‘Do not cut off diplomatic relations. Do not withdraw your Ambassador. Leave your Trade Commissioner in position. Do not do anything to upset the Iranian Government’. Yet they have the audacity to suggest that a government of their ilk could stand here with that policy and hold its head in pride, faced by the realities of what has taken place in Iran.

I hold no brief for the former Shah of Iran. I am here to support the position of this Government which is faced by a very difficult situation which a major ally of this nation is also facing. What we are doing is pulling our weight, along with many other countries in the Western world, to demonstrate in real terms to the Iranian authorities, to the Iranian people and, I hope, above all, to the Ayatollah Khomeini the fact that he cannot browbeat, he cannot threaten and he cannot expect the entire world to stand back and let him and his supporters threaten a group of diplomatic hostages in the way they have been treated in recent months. What has become of the Vienna conventions on diplomatic immunity? What has become of the United Nations General Assembly resolutions and the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iran’s action, which have been made since December of last year? I will tell the House what has become of them. Firstly, the Soviet Union refused to accept the Security Council resolution. Of course, that resolution failed because of the capacity of the Soviet Union to apply the boycott. But the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the General Assembly of the United Nations, representing virtually every nation in the world, have diplomatic representatives and are aware of the fact that their diplomats have the right to be protected in accordance with international law and normal justice.

I refer to the Iranian authorities rather than to the Iranian Government, for a very important reason. On that point I must say that the honourable member for Lalor did have something sensible to say. It is true that there are at least three major elements in the power structure in Iran today. We have the Ayatollah Khomeini who is undoubtedly the leader of the revolution but has also successfully captured the imagination of the student movement and many other groups within the community. Secondly, we have the new President, Mr Bani-Sadr, who is trying to demonstrate through a secular group of politicians some attempt to bring back reason into a situation of utter chaos. The third element in the exercise is. being applied by the Ayatollah Beheshti, who is the leader of a militant clique of clerics which is also part of the Revolutionary Council. As we understand the situation, at this stage Bani-Sadr has a very small majority. He certainly does not have the support of the militant students. It is equally sure that the Ayatollah Khomeini, who came to power with the support of those students, is not so stupid as to cut off the very base of his political support.

That is why we are seeing a difficult position at this stage. At least three groups within the power play in Iran are organising their positions with the clerics expecting that when finally the Parliament or the National Assembly, is established in late May of this year they will have a majority in that Assembly. They anticipate that with that majority they will be able to make life even more difficult than it already is for those limited elements in the Administration under Bani-Sadr which are trying to reintroduce a reasonable system of administration. Nevertheless, the fact remains that when the Ayatollah Khomeini offered to hand over the hostages to the President and his political authority, the offer was turned down. That is the essence of the problem. The United States has gone through nearly three months of the most patient negotiation. It has turned every page to attempt to find a solution to this problem.

Yet time after time promises were made and, as quickly, they were broken. Finally, we have reached the situation where the United States has obviously had enough and is now prepared to apply sanctions at the diplomatic level and at the trade level. It has said to countries like Australia: ‘We expect you, as an ally of America, as a country which accepts the concepts of diplomatic immunity, to support us in whatever way you can to make this point clear’.

I want also to take up a further point made by the honourable member for Lalor in relation to trade. He cited some figures relevant to 1978-79. In basic terms they are correct. However, if he looked at the most recent figures he would see an interesting situation. Nearly 60 per cent of our total trade to Iran is in the export of rural commodities- meats, wheat, barley, corn and so forth. What is interesting is that the United States in its application of trade boycotts on Iran specifically excluded all food items.

Mr Peacock:

– And the United Nations Security Council resolution.

Mr CONNOLLY:

-This is the important thing. As the Minister so rightly points out, the United Nations Security Council resolution also stated that whilst there is a strong case for applying trade boycotts on secondary goods- in other words, commodities affecting the very capacity to keep the industrial base of the country goingthere was no reason why the peasants who make up the majority of the population of that country should be expected to suffer unduly because of the activities of fanatics which happen to be controlling that country at this stage. This Government will continue to support what it believes is correct; that is, that diplomats, of whatever country they happen to belong, have the right to carry out their activities in peace and in accordance with the international conventions relevant to diplomatic immunity.

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

page 1723

CONSTRUCTION OF COMMONWEALTH LAW COURTS, HOBART

Reference to Public Works Committee

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

– I move:

At the present time Hobart has no permanent court facilities to house the Federal and Family Courts. The present accommodation used is quite inadequate and unsuitable. The Federal Court, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and other tribunals share a small court room in the Australian Government Centre while the Family Court is located in leased premises. The site of the proposed work is in Davey Street, in central Hobart. It is well situated close to the new State law courts complex and is ideal for the purpose of consolidating Commonwealth law courts functions in Hobart.

The proposed facilities are planned to meet the existing and projected accommodation needs of the Commonwealth courts and tribunals in Hobart to the year 2000 and will include facilities for the Federal Court of Australia; the Family Court of Australia including counselling and child minding facilities; the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and other Federal tribunals; the Deputy Crown Solicitor; conference and hearing rooms, chambers, library and other support facilities. The proposed court building will comprise a basement, ground floor and four upper floors. The existing historic Trades Hall building on the site which was built in 1847 will be retained and integrated into the design to protect an historic and attractive streetscape. This is a very substantial project with an estimated cost at March 1980 prices of $8. 4m. I have pleasure in tabling plans of the proposed work for the information of members of the Public Works Committee and other honourable members.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I support the motion but I will speak only briefly. I want to place on record my gratitude to the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) for the speed with which he has brought this proposal from the drawing board to this Parliament and now to the Public Works Committee for hearing in Hobart on dates tentatively selected as 6, 7 and 8 May. I say to the Minister, who is a fellow Tasmanian, that it is greatly appreciated that he and his senior departmental officers have acted so swiftly and efficiently to bring this matter to the stage which it has now reached.

The proposed work involves a project of enormous significance to the City of Hobart with an expenditure of $8. 4m. In a way today has been a very great ‘red letter day’ for Tasmania. Last evening it was announced that the $25m National Marine Science Centre is to be transferred from Cronulla in New South Wales to Hobart. Today the honourable member for Braddon in his capacity as Minister for Housing and Construction has brought into this House right on schedule the motion to refer this matter to the Public Works Committee as he had promised.

Everything the Minister has said is true and correct. There has never been a Commonwealth law courts facility in Hobart. The courts have used temporary premises. It has been, I know to the Minister and the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and others, a matter of concern that people involved in hearings in the Family Law Court have had to stand in the corridors of the MLC building waiting for their cases to be heard. When the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs came to Hobart it had to sit in the Criminal Court building in Salamanca Place, which considerably offput a number of witnesses. I commend the Minister. I think it is a happy coincidence that he is a barrister of some considerable eminence in his own right. I hope that when this matter comes before the Public Works Committee it will be satisfactorily approved. I believe the evidence is there to justify the proposal. I congratulate the Minister and the Government for bringing the project to this stage and look forward to the earliest possible completion and official opening of the Commonwealth law courts building in Hobart.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1724

STATES (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 March, on motion by Mr Howard:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-This Bill is an important piece of legislation, the reverberations of which will be felt through the 1980s if this Government remains in office. In that unfortunate event what we are likely to see develop, particularly as a result of the substantial step towards it made in this legislation, is the establishment in this country of a second income tax. Income tax will tend to be levied not just by the Federal Government but by the State governments as well. Before explaining that in further detail let me discuss what the Bill does particularly and then what flows from it.

The Bill does two things essentially. Firstly it amends the original legislation, which is 1976 legislation, to provide for a minimum entitlement for 1980-81 which guarantees the States that their general revenue grant from the Commonwealth in that year will be at least of the same real value as it was in 1979-80. A general revenue grant is a payment to the States of a substantial amount of money- a little less than half of the total funds which will go to the States- in a form which the States may spend as they wish for revenue purposes. They may spend it not for investment purposes but for general revenue purposes. Secondly, the Bill provides that withholding tax on mining company payments to Aboriginal bodies should not be included for tax sharing purposes. This is a fairly minor change and I do not wish to discuss it any further. The first issue is extremely important. It raises very important issues indeed. Though the Opposition will be very critical of it, we will not oppose it because without it the States will be even worse off than they will otherwise be.

Because this legislation takes us another step towards the so-called new federalism I think it is appropriate at this stage to review what has happened under the new federalism since this Government came to office. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) promised, when in the Opposition in September 1975, that if he was elected to Government he would introduce a new form of Federal financial relations. He put this in a rather grandiose setting. He talked about the need to protect individual freedom and the need to provide an effective barrier against authoritarian centralist control. In that way he tried to convey the impression that this new form of Federal financial relations would enable the States to be freer of central control than was previously the case. To those ends he proposed, firstly, to give the States a set percentage of income tax revenue for general revenue purposes and, secondly, to allow the States to impose an income tax surcharge- or, in theory, give a rebate- on their taxpayers. Those measures would, it was said by the present Prime Minister in his policy document issued in September 1 975:

  1. . ensure that the States will have substantially the financial capacity to meet their financial responsibilities.

Leaving aside the clumsy syntax, what he was clearly saying was that that new kind of financial relationship would enable the States to be better able to look after themselves financially than had previously been the case.

It is appropriate to consider how the Federal financing arrangements have been changed by the Fraser Government in the light of that policy. The first stage, stage 1, was introduced in 1976 and operated for the income year 1976-77. It provided the States with 33.6 per cent of that year’s personal income tax revenue as a general revenue grant. Previously general revenue grants had been determined by what has now become known as the Whitlam formula. The formula was on the basis that the previous year’s general revenue grant was increased by a formula derived from the percentage increase in average weekly earnings over the previous year, plus the increase in the population of the State, and a betterment factor of 3 per cent. Therefore, if average weekly earnings had gone up 1 2 per cent and the State population had gone up 2 per cent the total increase would be 17 per cent.

The third aspect of stage 1 was that the States still obtained funds in other ways from the Federal Government. As well as this general revenue grant now set in terms of a percentage of personal income tax of 33.6 per cent, they also receive moneys in other ways, as was previously the case. Those three other ways essentially were: General purpose capital funds, specific purpose capital funds and specific purpose recurrent funds. The general purpose capital funds are payments to the States, one-third of which is a grant and two-thirds of which is loan money which the States must spend on capital works. They decide the priorities that they want to allocate those funds to in the areas of capital expenditure. In regard to specific purpose capital funds, the Federal Government lays down the kinds of capital works on which the amount of money must be spent. Of course, the principal expenditure in this area is roads, but there is also very important expenditure in relation to education, health, housing and so on. The specific purpose recurrent payments are simply funds which are allocated to particular purposes by the Federal Government and which must be spent by the States in those areas for recurrent expenditures. The major cost in this regard is in the area of education, but health is also very important.

Those are the ways in which funds have been paid to the States over the years. Those forms still remain under the so-called new federalism. The change was in respect of the way in which the general revenue payment was made. This is now in the form of a set percentage of income tax. As part of that stage 1 a guarantee was given that the States would receive a minimum entitlement of at least the amount they would have received under the Whitlam formula- that is, the Labor Government’s formula- for adjusting the previous year’s revenue grant to the States. This was an extremely important guarantee which was given by the Fraser Government in 1976 to the States. It was extremely important because all of the States except Queensland have relied on that guarantee ever since it was givenever since the new system came into operation. Even Queensland is relying on that guarantee in this current financial year. When I said that the States relied or depended on that guarantee, I meant that the amount of money which they would have received from the formula- it was a straight out percentage of the personal income tax formula- was less than that which would have been obtained by the continuance of the Labor Government’s adjustment formula, the Whitlam guarantee. Therefore, it has been of great importance to the welfare of the States that this guarantee has continued for the past four years.

The importance of the legislation which is now before the House is that it does not continue that guarantee. The original legislation provided that the guarantee ran for four years. Without further legislation there is no guarantee apart from that relating to the percentage of income tax. What we have before us is a Bill which introduces a different form of guarantee for one year. That is extremely important to the States. The guarantee which is now to be introduced is different from that contained in the Whitlam formula. The Federal Government still retained very much the power over State financial allocations as part of the stage 1 step towards new federalism.

There was no provision in the legislation for variations in the percentage of personal income tax that the States would receive. Therefore, the States were in a sense tied because they could not adjust the percentage in any way. That was very much in the hands of the Federal Government. Personal income tax rates and the proportion of personal income tax to total tax collections, of course, remained entirely Commonwealth responsibilities. This was a very important factor if the Federal Government decided to downgrade the importance of income tax as some Ministers have suggested should be the case. The Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson), for instance, is on record as saying what a good idea it would be if we were to move away from income tax to more indirect forms of taxation. As I will point out later, that is a very important proposal indeed for the States under this so-called new federalism.

In regard to the States being still very much under the power of the Federal Government for financial allocations, specific purpose payments which are proposed as part of” this new federalism could still be reduced, abolished or absorbed into general revenue grants, so enabling a cutback of the funds to the States. Of course that has been very much what has happened. There have been cutbacks in specific purpose payments. I will come to that in a moment. As a result of all this, the States were still very much at the Federal Government’s mercy in regard to payments. There was not greater independence as a result of getting a percentage of the income tax revenue notionally allocated to them each year.

Stage 2 enabled the States to vary income tax rates by imposing a surcharge on taxpayers in that State or theoretically giving them a rebate. Stage 2 of new federalism was introduced in the first half of 1978. This Parliament passed legislation to enable the States to bring about this surcharge or rebate on top of the income tax levels determined by the Federal Parliament. No State has yet passed the necessary complementary legislation to enable it to start to levy that surcharge or to apply the rebate. All Premiers, except Sir Charles Court in Western Australia, have expressed their opposition to this concept. They concede that there is no great political mileage for them in having to take up the burden of levying income tax as a result of the Commonwealth Government’s cutting back their payments and putting them in a dire financial situation. The Premiers understandably are very opposed to this extension of income tax to their area. Also importantly I think we should note that Mr Justice Else-Mitchell, the head of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, has expressed doubts as to the constitutional validity of any State legislation that may be passed to authorise the States varying income tax rates in th>.t State. His concern is the possible infringement of constitutional prohibitions upon discrimination or preference under section 51 (ii) and section 99 of the Constitution.

Further development over the period in relation to these new Federal financial relations has been the development of infrastructure borrowings. The Government has allowed the States a specific form of new borrowing to deal with proposals for special additions to larger State authority programs for infrastructure financing. This was agreed at the Loan Council meeting in mid- 1978. It was said to be confined to exceptional cases which relate to public utilities with special significance for development and which require outlay within a relatively short time span. The funds were to be obtained from Australia, if possible, but approval could be given for overseas borrowing. Overseas borrowing could also be allowed by the Loan Council in regard to normal semi-government borrowing programs if the loan could not be raised in Australia on satisfactory terms. Since the proposal to enable these infrastructure borrowings to take place was put forward there have been several approvals of overseas borrowings for infrastructure developments. Most of what has been approved in this area relates to power stations and the development of various other power schemes.

I come to consider how the States have fared from these new arrangements. The fact is that Commonwealth payments to the States have increased far less than total Commonwealth expenditures, and that is an extraordinarily important point. The first point to note about socalled new Fraser federalism is that the States have received less in the way of moneys from this Government than the Government has had in increasing the rate of its expenditures overall. In the four-year period from 1975-76 to 1979-80 total payments to the States through the Budget are up by 33.6 per cent, but total Commonwealth Budget outlays are up by 45 per cent. So the payments to the States area of Federal Government expenditures has increased at a far lower rate than total Commonwealth Budget outlays. It is also very important to note in this context that the consumer price index has increased by approximately 48 per cent over that period. If one takes the December quarter 1975 to the December quarter 1979. we get a 48 per cent rise in the CPI. Yet we see total Commonwealth outlays up by 45 per cent which is less than inflation, so it is a real reduction. But the States get only 33.6 per cent. That is a very significant and real cutback in moneys from this Government. So, in terms of the very basic matter looking at total payments in real terms, the States are obviously much worse off.

Why is this so? If one looks at Table 84 in Budget Paper No. 7 headed ‘Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities 1979-80’, one sees the various types of payments to the States set out for the years 1975-76 to the current year. One can see there the way in which the States fared under these various headings. For example, general revenue funds, which are the subject of the legislation now before the House, have increased by 74.6 per cent- well ahead of the rate of inflation. But of course this is the area that has been held up by the Whitlam guarantee, by the continuance of the guarantee that the States will get no less than they would have under the Labor Government’s formula. So, as I say, there was a 74.6 percent rise in that area. But, in general purpose capital funds, there was an actual reduction in money terms of 3.6 per cent. So, with a reduction in money terms of 3.6 per cent and with inflation up by 48 per cent, obviously there has been a very severe cutback indeed in real terms.

Specific purpose recurrent payments have gone up by 43.6 per cent in money terms which is less than the rate of inflation- just less- but still not even as fast as the rate of inflation. Specific purpose capital payments have gone down in money terms every year under the Fraser Government and for this current year are 25.7 per cent less in money terms than they were in the last year of the Labor Government. Therefore, in real terms, there has been a quite catastrophic cutback in this area of specific purpose capital payments to the States. Total payments to the States have increased by 37.8 per cent or, if one looks at it in terms of total payments, with a slight adjustment the figure becomes 33.6 per cent, depending on which of the two tables one looks at. But, overall, it is 33.6 per cent including the Loan Council borrowing program. That, of course, compares with the 48 per cent that I mentioned for inflation.

So, overall, obviously the States have been quite badly affected. The only area of growth has been the area of general revenue grants. That area has only grown at such a high rate because of the continuance of the Whitlam guarantee. Of course without the guarantee being continued into the future the States are going to be in real trouble because none of the other forms of payment has increased in the past in real terms. In fact the two of them that I have mentioned have dropped drastically in real terms and the one growth area is now not to be such a growth area because of the legislation which is now before the Parliament. It is also important to note that, even if the increase in loan funds for semigovernment authorities is taken into account, including infrastructure borrowings, total funds made available to the States have increased by less than the increase in Federal Government expenditures generally over the past four years. Total funds for semi-government borrowing programs have increased by 1 12.5 per cent between 1975-76 and 1979-80. But, when one adds those funds to the funds payable to the States through the Budget, there is still only a 41 per cent rise- that is, less than the 45 per cent for the total government expenditures and less than the 48 per cent inflation figure.

It must be borne in mind also that this increased amount of funding by way of borrowings has considerably increased the interest burden for the States and their authorities. For example, in 1975-76, about 25 per cent of Commonwealth-controlled capital funds for the States were raised by State and local semigovernment authorities. This financial year, this share will be of the order of 46 per cent. The interest rates for semi-government borrowings are usually one-half per cent to one per cent higher than for Commonwealth Government borrowings. In addition, there is a certain subsidy element in funds provided by the Commonwealth, that is, the Loan Council general purpose capital payments, as I mentioned previously, are one-third grant and two-thirds loan, while for specific purpose capital payments the grant component is averaged around 65 per cent. On average, for all total capital funds provided through the Budget, about half are grants and the other half loans. This means that the effective rate of interest on such funds is about half that of the long-term bond rate. If the States have the same share of their capital funding controlled by the Commonwealth coming through the Budget sector now as in 1975-76, interest savings in 1979-80 would be about $130m. The total increase in their interest bill in the last four years amounts to around $250m. That is an increase due to the change in the arrangements by which much more of the moneys they receive these days are by way of loans rather than by way of grants. That, of course, is a very important point for the financial viability of the States as well.

Furthermore, there is an increased risk for the States in this infrastructure borrowing where funds are raised overseas. The States have to carry the exchange risk because eventually those funds have to be repaid. If the currency of the country from which they borrowed the money is revalued against the Australian dollar, an increased payment will have to be made- not just the face value of the loan but the additional amount to make up for the revaluation. Of course, in these days of rather volatile movements of exchange rates, this is a considerable risk that the States are now being asked to undertake. As they move more heavily into infrastructure borrowings as one area where they can get some money out of this Government, they may find in the future that they have undertaken risks which could impose a quite heavy burden on their Budgets when it comes to the repayment of those loans.

Despite new federalism- the rhetoric in regard to the need to prevent authoritarian centralist control- the fact is that there has been increased relative importance of untied general revenue grants in total payments to the States and there are still some developments which go in the opposite direction. Of course one of the basic points made, as I mentioned earlier, was that, by giving more emphasis to general revenue grants, therefore the States would have more control of their own affairs. But in fact it does not necessarily turn out to be like that. For instance, there has been a considerable increase in what we might term ‘matching arrangements’, that is, with the Government tightening up on matching arrangements for some programs. This has had the effect of forcing the States to commit more of their untied funds if they are to qualify for the full amount of the Federal allocation.

One of the areas where this has occurred is the dental scheme. Prior to July 1976, most of the funding for this scheme was provided by the Commonwealth. The program is now funded on a 50:50 basis. So, if the States are to get any money in the dental area, they have to put up half the funds. In the health planning agencies area Commonwealth funding was on a $2 for $ 1 basis. It is now on a dollar for dollar basis. In the home care services area, Federal Government funding was on a $2 for $ 1 basis. It is now on a one for one basis. Senior citizens centres were also funded on a $2 for $1 basis. That is now back to a one for one basis. Prior to 1978-79 there were no matching arrangements for the housing area. But in 1978-79, a base amount of $186m was provided, with $130m being provided on a dollar for dollar basis with the States’ own expenditure on housing. So there has been a very significant move towards matching arrangements there. In the area of transport planning and research the Commonwealth used to provide two-thirds of the funds. It now provides only half the funds. In the area of natural disaster relief, again the States have to put in more to qualify. So the list goes on. These are very important changes and what they add up to, of course, is more tying of States’ funds if the States are to get the full amount possible from the Commonwealth. Although specific purpose payments have been generally cut back, some new programs have been introduced. Again, that is a clear attempt to determine State expenditure priorities. Examples of this are the areas of water resource projects, urban public transport and main line track upgrading. Perhaps one could also mention the second bridge over the Derwent River.

In regard to infrastructure financing, all of these borrowing programs require Loan Council approval, which in effect means that they need Commonwealth Government approval as well. Previously, priorities for semi-government authority investment were a matter for the States to decide. Now the Commonwealth is determining priorities for an increasing number of these larger development projects. Again, one cannot talk too much about the independence of the

States if a lot of these borrowings for infrastructure programs are dependent on Federal Government authority.

It is ironic that as the Commonwealth approves more expenditure upon infrastructure development it approves less for Loan Council programs; that is, for that part of the capital stock of the nation which is devoted to improvements in living standards through improvements in essential services. I have not time in which to quote a statement by Professor Russell Mathews, who is perhaps the doyen in this area of FederalState financial relations, but it is worthy of note that he has commented very critically indeed, in his annual publication Australian Federalism for the year 1978, on this change in policy. He has pointed to the dangers of this new approach of cutting back funds for the States, in that much less is expended on our cities, essential services, transport systems and so on. We have the remarkable situation that in the midst of a substantial recession expenditures by State governments in these areas are being cut back; that in this respect we are repeating the history of the Great Depression of the 1930s. In making those statements, Professor Mathews is very right indeed.

Let me summarise how the States have fared under new federalism. They have suffered severe cutbacks in funds paid through the Budget. Without the Whitlam guarantee they would have been even worse off. They have been allowed to borrow more but at the cost of an increased interest burden, an increased foreign exchange risk and loss of control over investment priorities. In total they have received a smaller percentage increase in funds than the percentage increase in total Federal Government expenditures.

I come now to consider what new federalism will mean to the States in the future. It seems that it will be a case of the same but more so, much more so indeed because of what is in the Bill. As I have mentioned, the Bill provides only a guarantee that the real amount of the general revenue payment to the States in 1980-81 will be no less than the payment in 1 979-80. That is much less than the Whitlam formula provided, because it merely maintains real value. It is an inflation adjustment formula whereas, as I have mentioned, the Whitlam formula contained allowances for average weekly earnings, population increase and a 3 per cent betterment factor. Thus, it is a very substantially reduced quarantee. This will mean that if the States are forced to rely on the guarantee there will be a decline in the real value of the grant per capita. There will be no allowance in the guarantee for population growth. Whether the States will need to rely on the guarantee depends on the rate of inflation. The tax sharing formula will give an overall rise of 1 1 .3 per cent this year. If inflation is above that level the States will rely on the guarantee. It should also be noted that the guarantee is for one year only, 1980-81. One cannot help noting the cynicism of the Federal Government in making a guarantee for that one year, which will take it past the 1980 election. After that year the only guarantee, apart from the guarantee of a percentage of income tax, is that there will be no decline in the money amount of the general revenue grant in any year compared with that of the previous year. With inflation running at 10 per cent, that is a totally meaningless guarantee.

There is little doubt that after 1980-81 the States will be left with a grant of 39.87 per cent of the previous year’s personal income tax and no guarantee whatever of any other kind. Exactly how that will affect the States will depend on what happens to the level of personal income tax. If it continues to rise as rapidly as it has in the current year, that is, by 1 8 per cent, the absence of the guarantee will not be a problem. It will be if, as is possible, given the statements by for instance the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) there is a movement towards indirect taxes and away from income tax. In such a situation the States would be vulnerable indeedwith no guarantee and the growth tax base being eroded as the Government moved away from that form of revenue raising.

All this indicates that the States will have to face considerable financial pressures in the future. Under new federalism their funds have been cut back considerably and the prospect, as a result of the passage of the legislation now before the House, is that those cutbacks will be more severe in the future. Accordingly, I move, in respect of the motion for the second reading:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is of the opinion that the Bill is grossly deficient in that it-

1 ) only guarantees the States a minimum entitlement to general financial assistance in 1980-81 which is of lower real value per capita than the level of such payments in 1979-80;

provides this inadequate guarantee for only one year, after which the only guarantee for the States is that the total money amount of such payments will not be reduced in future years, a guarantee which would allow continuing reductions in the value of such payments in future years;

in combination with the severe reductions in the real value of specific purpose payments to the States, will place the States in acute financial difficulty; and

will accordingly place great pressure on the States to introduce a second income tax as provided for by the Fraser Government ‘s new federalism ‘.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

Mr BRADFIELD:
Barton

– It is my pleasure to speak tonight in support of a Bill to amend the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. I do so with much pleasure because over the years since the Fraser Government came to power in 1975 we have had a policy of federalism. Of course, some people have found some difficulty in understanding this federalism policy, but when one analyses it one finds that it is fair and that it recognises fairly the two other tiers of government outside the Federal Government- the various State governments of Australia and particularly local government, the third tier of government in Australia. It has been the policy of this Government to move away from the centralist policies of the Whitlam Labor Government and to give responsibility fairly to the two other tiers of government in Australia because they are the tiers of government closest to the Australian people.

May I take honourable members through some of the history of what has happened since the introduction of the federalism policy. The honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), who spoke prior to the suspension of the sitting this evening, knows that it goes back to the Premiers Conference of June 1975. At that time the Whitlam Labor Government was in power. At that Premiers Conference certain conditions were reached- these were explained by the honourable member for Gellibrand- whereby the States of Australia would have a guarantee of at least a 3 per cent growth rate in real terms in the money they received. In fact the amendment before the Parliament tonight is an obligation to that guarantee. Since that original guarantee in 1975 our federalism policy has gone through a number of stages. Much of it has reached fruition and has been very thankfully accepted by the State governments and particularly by local government.

This aspect of federalism, the tax sharing with the States and with local government, was originally agreed to at a Premiers Conference and was to become effective in the financial year 1 976-77, when all the States of Australia were to receive 33.6 per cent of all personal income tax collections in Australia. That 33.6 per cent was to be divided up by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, taking into consideration the populations of the States and various other factors. The States were guaranteed a growth rate in the tax sharing arrangements. At the Premiers Conference in October 1977 it was agreed that it was very difficult for the States to work out their budgetary requirements based on a tax in the year of collection. In other words, in the financial year 1976-77 the States were to receive 33.6 per cent of total personal income tax collections in that year. Although they had budgetary commitments in that financial year, they did not quite know what the final calculations were going to be until the end of the financial year.

At the Premiers Conference of October 1977 it was decided that the tax sharing formula should be rearranged so that the States received a percentage of the personal income tax collected in the previous year. The 33.6 per cent of the current year’s tax collections was calculated to be equal to 39.87 per cent of the previous year’s tax collections. So today the States of Australia receive 39.87 per cent as their share of personal income tax collected in the previous year by the Federal Government. As I stated earlier, the Commonwealth Grants Commission administers the proportion that each State gets.

The Bill before the House today is an extension of an agreement reached at a Premiers Conference under the Whitlam Government in 1975 whereby each State was guaranteed a 3 per cent growth factor in real terms. Although it was agreed that the States, at a Premiers Conference, would reach an agreement that would carry this guarantee of the amount of money they were to get some years into the future, this has not yet been achieved. We need a 12 months extension of the current arrangement so that the States can carry on knowing full well that the growth in the amount of money they are to get will still be forthcoming. In the speech by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) when he introduced this Bill, he said:

The main purpose of this Bill is to put into effect arrangements adopted at the 7 December 1979 Premiers Conference concerning States’ minimum tax sharing entitlements for the financial year 1980-81.

As the Treasurer said, embodied in this Bill is a permanent guarantee which ensures that each State’s entitlement in any year will not be less in money terms than that of the previous year.

Mr Armitage:

-What about inflation? What about the growth of population?

Mr BRADFIELD:

– It takes into consideration inflation and all those things that the honourable member for Chifley has mentioned. I know that he is a brilliant economist. I will come to figures which show that it takes all those things into consideration. The States of Australia have been generously treated by this Federal Government since it came to power.

Mr Armitage:

– You are trying to force them into introducing a second income tax.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Order! The honourable member for Chifley will remain silent.

Mr BRADFIELD:

– That is all right, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will be able to fix up the honourable member for Chifley later in the speech. I wish to look at what has happened to the States of Australia over the years in this respect because the honourable member for Chifley touched on this point. I will put forward a few statistics which prove the generosity of this Federal Government in its responsibility to provide finance to the States. I have here a Department of the Treasury summary dated February 1980. It summarises the budgetary commitment of all the Australian States for the six months ended December last year. The States of Australia had an accumulated surplus of $ 1 59.2m as at December 1979. My State of New South Wales, which is continually crying and blaming the Federal Government for not providing funds when New South Wales cannot carry on with one of its commitments, had a budgetary surplus of $117.1 m at the end of December 1979. Yet people such as the honourable member for Chifley, the honourable member for Gellibrand and the Premier of New South Wales say that the States are not getting enough money. How can they say that the States are not getting enough money when at the same time the States have an accumulated surplus of $ 159.2m in a six months ‘period.

Let us look at some other factors that come into this debate. Let us look at the number of public servants who have been employed by the States. In the last 10 years the State governments have increased their labour forces by 30 per cent. At the same time the Federal Government has exercised some restraint; it has increased its labour force by 17 per cent. The States have received this money through the generosity of the federalism policy. They have been able to increase their labour forces, they have been able to provide the correct services to the people of their States and they have had virtually no deficit. At the same time the Federal Government has had a tremendous responsibility in controlling a massive deficit of which I am sure all members of this Parliament are aware.

I wish to look briefly at some of the figures that relate to my own State of New South Wales. I remind honourable members of the size of the deficits that that State has had to incur. In fact it has not really had a deficit. In the financial year 1 975-76, my State of New South Wales had a deficit of $900,000. In 1976-77 the deficit was $500,000; in 1977-78 the deficit was $700,000; and in 1978-79 it was $600,000. These figures are minute when we look at the total budgetary requirements of New South Wales. Funds have been provided to New South Wales through the generosity of federalism and that State has been able to present a balanced Budget. We have provided funds to the States of Australia so that they have been able to present balanced Budgets. It is through federalism and through the formula that we are seeking to extend tonight through this legislation that those funds have been provided.

The honourable member for Gellibrand said that specific purpose grants to the States have been declining. Many people get on the political band wagon and talk about items such as this. But we have to look at the total funding that is going to the States. We have to look at the fact that we have provided to the States increasing amounts of general purpose grants. For the information of those people listening to the proceedings tonight, I point out that general purpose grants are funds that have no ties. They are funds that can be used at the discretion of the various State governments. This Government has reversed the procedures adopted by the Whitlam Government- procedures which provided funds to the States that had ties and that had to be used for particular purposes. We have reversed that procedure. We are currently providing to the States funds of an untied nature. The States have the responsibility to use those funds in areas of their choosing.

I would like to talk a little about the future because the honourable member for Gellibrand- I know he has a duty to do this as a member of the Opposition- painted a picture of gloom in relation to the future financial arrangements of the States. I must disagree completely with him because I can see no picture of gloom. Honourable members realise that the funds the States will receive next financial year- that is the year 1 980-8 1 -will be based on the personal income tax collections by the Federal Government this year. We are already 75 per cent of the way into this financial year and there is already a clear pattern of how much money we will collect of which the States will receive a 39 per cent share. It is clear from the revenue figures for the year ending March 1980 produced by the Minister for

Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) that personal income tax collections are up 20 per cent. The honourable member for Gellibrand said that the figure was 18 per cent. However, the figures show that at the end of March personal income tax collections by the Federal Government totalled $5,388m compared with $4,973m for the year ending March 1979. That represents an increase of 20 per cent in the base figure which the State governments are going to share. That means that the States are assured of a 20 percent increase in their funds next financial year. I do not think we can show any more support than that to the States. I do not think we can show any more recognition of their responsibilities than by giving them a 20 per cent increase in general purpose funds.

I would like to rectify a statement made by the honourable member for Gellibrand. He said- I have written down his words- that payments to the States have actually decreased. Of course, he was referring to a combination of general purpose revenue grants and specific purpose grants over the years. If honourable members refer to page 252 of the Budget Speech of 1979-80 they will clearly see that the Whitlam Government dwindled down the percentage of total Budget moneys going to the States. In the years 1 975-76 and 1974-75 total Budget outlays to the States went down to 20 per cent. But now they have increased 2 per cent beyond that figure. In the year 1979-80 that figure has gone up to 22.4 per cent. So there has been a real increase of 2 per cent in the total Budget outlays of the Federal Government since the Whitlam era. That shows the extent to which our federalism policy has had an effect on people and on our States.

I might just mention briefly that members of the Opposition, particularly the honourable member for Gellibrand, have tried to put fear back into the minds of the people by saying that our policies will result in the imposition of a second income tax. Our policies are doing just the reverse. The States, of course, have the power to tax the people under the federalism policy. They also have the power to give the people rebates. When we analyse the figures that I have just mentioned, when wc consider the fact that for the six months ended December 1979 the States had a total surplus in their Budgets of $ 159m, we come to the conclusion that there is ample opportunity for the States not to impose a second tax on people but rather to impose a tax rebate. This is what people do not understand. I challenge the States to take up what is given to them under our federalism policy. I challenge those States that are efficient in terms of their expenditure and their Budgets to give to their people a tax rebate because that is what our policy allows. It is not a policy that imposes a double tax; it is a policy that gives to States of Australia the opportunity to give to their people a rebate in taxation. I cannot understand why no State of Australia has taken up that opportunity. The opportunity is there, the funds are there and the people of those States deserve to be given a rebate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), which reads:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not opposing the Bill, the House is ofthe opinion that the Bill is grossly deficient in that it-

1 ) only guarantees the States a minimum entitlement to general financial assistance in 1 980-8 1 which is of lower real value per capita than the level of such payments in 1979-80;

2 ) provides this inadequate guarantee for only 1 year, after which the only guarantee for the States is that the total money amount of such payments will not be reduced in future years, a guarantee which would allow continuing reductions in the value of such payments in future years;

in combination with the severe reductions in the real value of specific purpose payments to the States, will place the States in acute financial difficulty, and

will accordingly place great pressure on the States to introduce a second income tax as provided for by the Fraser Government’s new federalism.

I would say its so-called new federalism. I have listened to the economic logic of the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield). 1 understand he made his fortune-I have heard that it is a very appreciable fortune- out of tyres. In other words, he is involved with the car industrypossibly even the used car industry. I recollect that my father, a very cultured and wise person, made the point to me once that when the horse dealer went in came the car dealer. I do not think the honourable member showed very much logic when he spoke on the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill. The basic purpose of this Bill is to force the States into introducing a second income tax. In other words, the people of this country not only will have income tax reefed off them by the Federal Government and have a tax office at every petrol bowser, which is occurring today, but will also have a second income tax reefed off them by the State governments.

Let me deal with a little of the logic behind that. The Whitlam formula was introduced by the Whitlam Labor Government. I tried to make a point to the honourable member for Barton by interjection but apparently he could not absorb it. That is a formula which every State, even the Liberal States, wants continued. Whether they be Labor or Liberal they want it continued because they realise that this is in the best interests of the people of their States. What did it provide for? It provided for increases in the annual grants according to movements in average weekly earnings. In other words, there would be a base figure for the last year. Then there would be an addition for average weekly earnings. Then there would be a second addition for population. After that, there would be a third addition of the 3 per cent betterment factor. This has meant that the States have been able to improve the different facilities that were required by the people such as in road building and the social welfare areas where it is so important that the little people, the great mass of the people, should be helped.

The Fraser Government gave the States under its so-called new federalism 39.87 per cent of personal income tax, but gave a guarantee that for a period of four years the States would not receive less than they would have received under the Whitlam formula. In other words, the 39.87 per cent of personal income tax guaranteed by the Fraser Government is less than was provided to the State under the Whitlam formula. At the Premiers Conference in December last year the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) gave an undertaking that the State Governments would receive-

Dr Jenkins:

– He would not keep it.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– We are still to find that out. On past history of broken promises, which I will be outlining in a few moments, it is very doubtful indeed. Reverting to this question, at the Premiers Conference in December the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that the States would receive an amount equivalent to the 1 979-80 funds adjusted for inflation. That sounds wonderful. One would almost be trapped into the idea that the Government is going to give equivalent funds in this coming financial year, in 1980-81, in real money terms. As always in relation to the Prime Minister one has to look under the table for the trap. For a start this guarantee will last for only one year. The Prime Minister said that then further discussions will be held with the States. But that undertaking, to give the same funds as were received in 1979-80 adjusted in terms of inflation, did not include the provision in the Whitlam formula for an adjustment in terms of population increase, nor did it include a 3 per cent betterment factor. In other words, in real terms the States will receive less in 1980-8 1 than they received in real money terms in 1979-80. In other words, this is an artifice by the Government and the Prime Minister to get over the election period. He does not want to appear during this election year to reduce the funds of the States, though in real money terms they are being reduced. They are the real facts of the case and that is what is realling happening.

Let us go deeper into this Bill. It also provides what looks like a magnificent guarantee. It says that there will be no reduction, and this was mentioned by the honourable member for Bradfield who represents a swinging seat.

Mr Neil:

– A great speech.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I sincerely hope for the people of Bradfield, like the people represented by the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) who just interjected with one of his usual puerile interjections, will realise just-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! I am quite sure the honourable member for Chifley would want the record straightened. I believe he is referring to the honourable member for Barton and not the honourable member for Bradfield.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I beg your pardon. I intended to refer to the honourable member for Barton.

Mr Bradfield:

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr ARMITAGE:

- His name is Mr Bradfield. It becomes rather difficult because the two honourable members look alike- same mentality.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Chiefly will not persist in speaking while the Chair is claiming the attention of the chamber.

Mr Bradfield:

– I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I am offended at being referred to as the honourable member for Bradfield. Barton is a marginal seat, and I like being the member for a marginal seat. I enjoy the challenge. It is a seat that I like very much.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr Neil:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take offence at the words of the honourable member for Chifley when he said that I made a puerile interjection. I said that the speech of the honourable member for Barton was an excellent speech, or words to that effect, and I stand by that.

Mr ARMITAGE:

-I said one of his usual puerile interjections.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The honourable member will proceed with his speech.

Mr Neil:

– I said it was a perfectly accurate description.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member does not have the call. He will resume his seat.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I am sorry if I offended the honourable member for Bradfield by referring to the honourable member for Barton as the honourable member for Bradfield. I realise that the honourable member for Barton takes exception to what I have said. I am quite sure that the honourable member for Bradfield would be equally offended. I sincerely hope that the people of the marginal electorates of St George and Barton appreciate only too well that their members of parliament are deliberately supporting legislation which will decrease the grants to the States in real money terms and will force the States to introduce a second income tax. The people of those two important electorates- electorates which could determine the Government of this country and could determine whether the States get a fair go in the future- will realise only too well that these people are supporting this legislation designed to force them not only to pay income tax to the Federal Government, not only to pay a petrol tax at every petrol bowser, but also to pay the States a second income tax.

This Bill also provides what looks on the surface to be a magnificent guarantee. But like everything the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, puts up to the States or to anybody else, one has to look very carefully indeed below the surface. This guarantee provides that there will be no reduction in money value in future years. That guarantee is to be found in section 81. This means that there will be a reduction in real money terms. For that reason it is very important that the people appreciate what this means. The Whitlam formula there has been a guarantee for four years that this formula would be introduced and implemented with the State governments- included increases in respect of average weekly earnings, increases in movements in population, plus a 3 per cent betterment factor. In future years all that will be guaranteed is that the States will receive no reduction in money value. That does not include inflation, average weekly earnings, population, or the 3 per cent betterment factor. In other words, the States will be considerably worse off than they were before. In itself this means the introduction of a second income tax by the States. The honourable member for Bradfield, sitting in a marginal seat, is cutting his own throat. He even dares to interject. I am sorry; I insulted the honourable member for Bradfield again. I meant to refer to the honourable member for Barton. More than that, the honourable member for Barton is supporting a proposal which means that the people in his electorate will be worse off than they were before.

Is it any wonder that people are beginning to realise where the truth lies. The Opposition has the honourable member for Gellibrand with real economic expertise. He not only has the necessary academic qualifications, but has worked practically in the field as a research officer for the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He has applied himself very assiduously in this field; today he is the shadow Treasurer of the Opposition. He is the alternative Treasurer. On the other hand we have a suburban solicitor as Treasurer. He is supposed to be Treasurer but in actual fact he simply accepts the advice of the Treasury. He implements its advice but has not the capacity or the knowledge, as a suburban solicitor, to query that advice.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. That statement is a reflection on the Chair. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have praised the Treasurer many times for being an excellent Treasurer and you have praised his qualifications. The honourable member should not disagree with you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinOrder! There is no point of order. If the honourable member is reflecting on the honourable member for St George as being a suburban solicitor, and the honourable member for St George objects to that statement I will ask for the honourable member for Chifley to withdraw.

Mr Neil:

– He is talking about the Treasurer. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have praised the Treasurer very often in the House as being an excellent Treasurer.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– The honourable member for St George is noted in this Parliament as deliberately getting up on frivolous and spurious points of order deliberately to take up the speaking time of honourable members. Even those Deputy Speakers representing his own party and the Speaker himself have had to call him to order for this nefarious conduct in this House. Compare the honourable member for Gellibrand with the present Treasurer. The one has economic expertise and the other is a local suburban solicitor. What would the Treasurer know about these matters? Solicitors are recognised as the worst businessmen. Never go to them for advice. They are sure to give the wrong advice. Of course, we also have the Prime Minister with his economic expertise. He has never had to work for a crust in his life. His main ability is that he is a gentleman farmer. Then we have the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) who has not only the qualifications but also the economic expertise. There we have the contrast of these people implementing the policies. I have heard that the Prime Minister deliberately put into the Treasury portfolio somebody who knows nothing whatsoever about economics or finance. In that way he will do the bidding of the advisers and not think for himself.

It was pointed out earlier this evening by the honourable member for Gellibrand that the funds to the States have increased far less than the total Budget outlays. Total Commonwealth Budget outlays are up 35 per cent. All forms of funds allocated to the States are up only approximately 33 per cent. In the period 1975 to 1979 the consumer price index was up 48 per cent. Whilst the actual allocations to the States, as a percentage of income tax, have appreciably increased, the overall increase is down compared with total Commonwealth Budget outlays and the consumer price index over the four year period from 1975 to 1979. The reason for that is that the special purpose grants have been reduced dramatically. We have in this chamber at the moment the former Minister for Urban and Regional Development, Mr Tom Uren. During the period when he was Minister the area which I represent, the western suburbs of Sydney, benefited greatly from special purpose grants.

Mr Uren:

– So did Cairns, in the electorate of the Minister at the table.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Yes, and so did the electorate of the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) who is at the table. I will give some examples of those special purpose grants which have been reduced to a trickle and, in some cases, have been cut out altogether. These are: Funds for road building, and funds for the urban development scheme which does not even exist today; the rail transport system in my own area, the need to improve the quality of life in the areas west of Sydney, and funds for the quadruplication of the western railway and for the provision of rolling stock and signalling equipment. All these things are necessary.

Mr Uren:

– Sewerage works.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– The honourable member for Reid says: ‘Sewerage works’. Today most of that area is sewered, thanks to the work which was done by the Department of Urban and Regional Development and by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development in those days- 1972-75. That funding has been reduced to a trickle today. These are the general revenue grants which were so important. Let us look at the funds which are provided for children’s services- for child care, for pre-school -

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Dental schemes.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Dental schemes. I agree with the honourable member for Parramatta. Going deeper into that area, I refer to emergency care and all the various other areas. These are the funds in the form of special purpose grants which, as I said, have been either reduced dramatically- reduced to a trickle- or cut out altogether. That is why the States in reality are receiving such a lower proportion of real funds today. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the fact is that the purpose of this Bill is to make the States introduce a second income tax.

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

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-We have just heard the speech of the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage), who is the expert mudslinger for the Opposition. All he has done in the past 10 minutes is to indulge in personal denigration of the Government and particularly of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer (Mr Howard). The Treasurer, under pressure on numerous occasions in this House, has not been found wanting. The Opposition has repeatedly tried to catch him out, but of course he is too smart for it. As for the criticism and the personal denigration by the honourable member for Chifley, quite frankly he ought to be ashamed of himself. He referred to the Treasurer as just a suburban solicitor. The Treasurer is one of the best Treasurers that this Parliament has ever seen and he will continue as such for many years.

Let me just take up the argument that was put by the honourable member for Chifley in relation to double taxation.

Mr Neil:

-It is rubbish.

Mr HODGES:

– It is just a lot of nonsense, or rubbish, as the honourable member for St George says. There is no suggestion in Fraser federalism that there will be double taxation.

The States have the right under stage 2 of Fraser federalism to apply a surcharge if they see fit or, indeed, to grant a rebate to their residents if they see fit to do that. All they have to do to bring this about is to enact legislation at the State level. It is just so much nonsense to talk about double taxation in relation to Fraser federalism. It is just not on.

Another argument was put forward by the honourable member for Chifley in relation to funds in various areas being reduced by this Government. (Quorum formed). The honourable member for Chifley has just illustrated to the House that he can deal out the criticism but he cannot take it. In other words, he is just a very poor sport. I move on to the point he was making in relation to funds being cut in certain areas. He referred to the period when the Australian Labor Party was in office and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) was pursuing all his great policies in relation to urban and regional development. I just say to the House that in those days money was being spent everywhere- money that the Government and the nation did not have. I notice that in pointing out these matters the honourable member for Chifley made no reference to the massive deficits that were incurred under Labor. I would have thought that in referring to expenditure cuts by this Government in areas where the previous Labor Government spent so freely, he would have to make reference to the massive deficits that his Government was responsible for when it was in power between 1972 and 1975.

In entering this debate on the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill, I do not want to refer specifically to the matters that have already been covered by the Treasurer in his second reading speech. I want to take up a couple of points which concern me deeply and which I know concern members on both sides of this Parliament. The criticism that is made of the Commonwealth by the States in many instances is not warranted. I want first of all to refer to an article which appeared in the Brisbane Telegraph last Friday, 1 1 April, headed: ‘Tax is poverty causeKnox’. It reads:

Federal Government taxation was causing poverty in Australia, Queensland Health Minister, Sir William Knox, said today.

Our taxation system as it affects the family needs a total overhaul ‘, Sir William said.

Taxation and other laws are at the heart of an onslaught on the Australian family’.

He said he had made a number of personal approaches to federal ministers seeking relief in terms of family and home nursing care allowances.

But this is only piecemeal action ‘, he said. ‘ Massive action needs to be taken quickly to stop the rot, and the only way is through taxation reform ‘, said Sir William.

I invite Queensland’s present Minister for Health, Sir William Knox, who is a former Treasurer of that State, to urge his Government to ask for less Commonwealth assistance. When the Premiers come to the Premiers Conferences they always require more and more funds from the Commonwealth, yet we hear the sort of comment from the present Queensland Health Minister about taxation being too high. What I thought he would have said, having made that statement, was that the Queensland Government was prepared to accept a lesser figure from the Commonwealth in the ensuing financial years. There is only one way in which the Commonwealth can reduce taxation. That is by a reduction of services to the community. I invite the Queensland Minister to tell this Parliament where he believes the expenditure cuts ought to take place. Should they take place in relation to social welfare, health, education, defence or what? It is just not good enough for State Ministers to talk in those terms when they do not have the responsibility of raising the funds. Another newspaper article is headed: ‘$2 1 million special grant but Knox expected more’. This article appeared in the Courier-Mail on 1 August 1978, when that same Minister was the Treasurer of the State. On the one hand the Minister is talking about taxation reform by this Government, which has instituted a number of tax reforms over the past three or four years, and on the other hand he talks in terms of requiring more money for his State ‘s operation.

I do not wish to be critical of what State governments do but I want to point out that if governments are to spend lavishly as the Queensland Government has on a new parliamentary annex costing in excess of $20m, if they are to spend so much as the Queensland Government has done, on lavish furnishings and fittings and on first rate cutlery and crockery and all the rest for a new parliamentary building, and if they are to provide an aircraft for their Premier, as the Queensland Government has done, then so be it; that is their business. But I think they ought to be careful with criticism of the Commonwealth in relation to taxation. There is only one way that the Commonwealth can get that tax and that is primarily through personal income tax.

It is not the first time that I have talked in this chamber about waste, particularly in the health area. I want to mention again tonight to the House what is happening right around the Commonwealth and, I believe, nowhere more than in my own State of Queensland. Nobody is advocating a cut in services to people but when one examines the amount of funds the State governments put into capital works to replace, in many instances, hospitals that should be closed down and when one looks at the recurrent expenses involved in the operation of those hospitals, it is clear that the States are acting irresponsibly when it comes to fiscal management. Many patients cared for in many of Queensland’s hospitals should be reclassified as nursing home patients and taken out of the more expensive category of hospitals.

Rebates from States, if the States consider their residents are deserving of rebates, should be instituted. If high taxation is causing poverty in the State of Queensland, as was stated in the article by Mr Knox which I referred to earlier, the Queensland Government can enact legislation under stage 2 of Fraser federalism and either apply a surcharge or, indeed, if it feels so inclined, grant a rebate. I believe that we ought to test just how genuine the Queensland Minister for Health is. Likewise, we should test how genuine the Premier of Queensland is. He is, frequently, critical of this Government for its high taxation policies. Indeed, taxes are not as high as they are in many other Western world countries. I want the States to prove to me and to all Australians and the Queensland Premier and Ministers to prove to all Queenslanders that their statements are not just a lot of hot air and that they are not hollow and meaningless statements.

The State bureaucracies have to be considered as well. The Commonwealth Government at the moment employs something like 400,000 people. Collectively the States have in the order of one million people in their public services. In Australia 47 per cent of all public moneys are expended by the Commonwealth, 46 per cent by the States and 7 per cent by local government. This indicates of course the magnitude of the States’ operations. So when they bleat about taxation which is set by the Commonwealth being too high or that they are not getting sufficient funds from the Commonwealth, they ought to think about their own expenditure programs. The States must accept their share of fiscal responsibility. The governments that expend public funds indeed should share the responsibility for raising them or at least have the decency not to be so critical when they raise taxation.

The next point I wish to make concerns me deeply because it gets back right into my own home area. I do not often talk about parochial matters in this Parliament, but I wish to refer to an article in one of my local papers. The local mayor was reported to have met a deputation of pensioners from the Australian Pensioners Party. The article reads:

The Mayor gave us a very good hearing but explained that if the council substantially reduced the amount of rates paid by pensioners the other ratepayers would have to pay twice as much, ‘ Mr Fox said after the meeting.

Fox was, apparently, the leader of the deputation. The article goes on:

It was suggested that we approach the Member for Redcliffe, . . . and the Federal Member for Petrie, . . . to see if either the State or Federal Government would subsidise the scheme.

Alderman Frawley promised us that he would place the matter before council and actively support our proposition if a government subsidy could be obtained, so that the burden of paying rates would not be transferred from one section of the community to another’.

This strikes right at the heart of Fraser federalism. Under the tax sharing arrangements for both the State and Commonwealth, the particular local authority to which I refer received nothing less than $347,000 in 1979-80. In the previous year it received $292,000. When we examine the policy of that council we find that 60 per cent of the general rate is now rebated to pensioners if they meet a certain means test. That means test, of course, can be relaxed or tightened, and the power to do that is entirely in the hands of the local authority. (Quorum formed). I feel sure the honourable member for Chifley, who called for a quorum, is in the early stages of senility. I am sure that the very famous Australian after which his electorate is named would turn in his grave if he knew who was representing that seat at the moment.

Mr Armitage:

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

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

-It had better be a valid point of order.

Mr Armitage:

– It is a very valid point of order. I take exception to that insulting remark made about me. I ask that it be withdrawn. At least I do not have to take the weight reducing pills that the honourable member for Petrie has to take.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Chifley feels that the remarks were a reflection on him. Would the honourable member for Petrie be prepared to withdraw them?

Mr HODGES:

-I withdraw them. In the few moments left to me I want to point out that the local authority to which I was referring, namely the Redcliffe City Council, paid out in the 1978-79 financial year $130,901 in rate remissions to pensioners. It is estimated that $145,000 will be paid out to pensioners in the current financial year. If the statements that are attributed to the mayor are correct- I have no reason to doubt that they are otherwise- I point out that in the 1 979-80 financial year that council has received $347,000. It is quite within that council’s power to apportion that money, if it so desires, to rate remissions for pensioners. I applaud the principle of applying rebates to pensioners for local authority rates. Many pensioners find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Let me point out to the House that local authorities have it within their power, if they so desire, to apply rebates to pensioners. They ought not to be coming on State and Federal governments for further subsidies.

I just want to make one final point in relation to the Leader of the Opposition in my own State of Queensland, a fellow called Casey. He talked to pensioners recently in Mackay. He said that in other States government subsidies varied from 25 per cent to 50 per cent, but in Queensland rebate arrangements differed between councils and in many areas there were no rebates. He said that the effects of skyrocketing valuations on local authority rating levels was one of the major problems facing pensioners. As I pointed out, the matter is entirely in the hands of local government. It is all right for Mr Casey to make promises of that nature because it is my view that he will never become Premier of Queensland. The fact is that in Queensland substantial subsidies go to local government for roadworks, drainage, sewerage, water supply and so forth. To draw that sort of comparison, quite frankly, is just absolutely preposterous. Finally, I say to the House that as far as rebates are concerned, I believe that local authorities have to accept the responsibility and not point the finger at State and Federal governments for further subsidies. The matter is entirely in their own hands.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Before I call the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown), I point out that the House is in a rather volatile frame of mind tonight. The level of conversation is so high that even the Hansard reporter is having difficulty hearing. There are people sitting in the Gallery who also would like to hear what is going on in the House. I do not think it does much for the dignity of the House when the level of conversation is so high that the person in the Chair has continually to call for order. I call the honourable member for Parramatta.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The most significant and invidious point to emerge from the speech delivered by the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), seeing that he is on record as being a high profile pharmacist, was that he started to talk about the wastage of public money in the medical field. I would have thought that out of a sense of propriety towards his profession he would have been prepared to forget the little episode of the $250m that has been wasted in overpayments to pharmacists. I would not have thought he would be bringing that to the attention of honourable members or those listening to the debate. I would like to deal with the purpose of the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill because I do not think the honourable member for Petrie, who preceded me in the debate, referred to it, even in the most oblique terms.

The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 to provide that each State’s tax sharing entitlement for 1980-81 will be at least as much in real terms as was its entitlement in the last financial year, 1979-80. The main provision in the Bill is this: Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 8 of the principal Act to provide that for the ensuing year each State will receive in real terms no less than the amount it received in 1979-80 as measured by the consumer price index for the four periods to March 1981 compared with the four quarters to March 1980 in the capital city of every State. To assess what this means in the context of the States financial position, one needs to consider what is known as the Whitlam agreement. We on this side of the chamber regret that it has passed into oblivion and into history. I am sure that most of the Premiers would agree that the fact that the Whitlam agreement has passed into memory has had a very deleterious effect on all of those States finances. The Whitlam agreement insisted that payments increase by the level of earnings plus the population increase and a betterment factor of 3 per cent, which, of course, meant that all the States had plenty of money to spend- a fair and equitable share of the Commonwealth’s garnering of tax.

Mr Cotter:

– How are the horses?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-They are all right. This Bill spells goodbye to the Whitlam formula and to the guarantees implicit in these previous arrangements. Under the arrangements which have operated in the past four years -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Martin)Order! The honourable member for Parramatta will resume his seat. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) will please desist from interjecting. He has been in the Parliament for a long time and he knows better. I give a general warning to honourable members on both sides of the House that from now on I will insist on the Standing Orders being absolutely and completely upheld. That applies to the speech by the honourable member for Parramatta and that of the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) who will follow him in the debate. I shall show no mercy to speakers from either side.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As a member of this House I am glad that you have made that observation, Mr Deputy Speaker. All of us who sit in this place know that the honourable member for Bendigo is a joke anyway. No one takes any notice of his inanities.

Mr Bourchier- I raise a point of order. With due respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you took people to task for making interjections you picked on me. It was not me. I think you ought to make sure you are correct before you make accusations. The honourable member for Parramatta accused me of interjecting when I did not.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I will not take that as a reflection on the Chair. I call the honourable member for Parramatta.

Mr Hodgman:

– I made the interjection.

Mr Bourchier:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Bendigo wants to test my patience. I warn the honourable member for Bendigo.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order. With due respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, you warned me without even asking me whether I wanted to raise a point of order, which is what I was seeking to do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Bendigo will resume his seat. The conduct of the House is in the hands of the person who happens to be in the Chair. For the sake of the dignity of the House I ask all honourable members to conduct themselves with the proper dignity which befits this place. I refer to all honourable members.

Mr Bourchier- I raise a point of order. You called my name as the person who interjected and I did not interject. If I do not have the right in this place to ask you to withdraw that there is something wrong. You are accusing me of interjecting and will not allow me to deny it. I did not interject.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-If I incorrectly called the honourable member for Bendigo to order for interjecting I apologise. If it was the honourable member for Denison who interjected he should not have done so because he is not even sitting in his correct seat.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I shall return to the Whitlam formula, once the cackling on the other side of the House has ceased. Under the arrangements which existed under the Whitlam formula over the past four years, there has been a fallback position. That simply means that a State’s entitlement in any year would not be less in absolute terms than it would have been had the Whitlam formula been in operation. It is sobering to consider that in each of those four years it has, in fact, been necessary to invoke that formula in the case in one of or all of the States. This financial year is the last year in which the safety net of the Whitlam formula will operate. The Government will take the net away next year. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that all of the State Premiers will want to do some pretty nifty’- I put that word in inverted commastightrope walking to avoid having their States plunged to the ground. From now on it will be purely tax sharing with no betterment factor.

The Western Australian Premier, with whom some honourable members would have some contact no doubt, attempted to have the Government agree to a reduction in the betterment factor from the present 3 per cent to 2 per cent. His argument was turned down- the betterment factor was not on. The Western Australian Premier described the Government’s attitude as uncompromising. I quote a statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) after the Premiers Conference in December last year. He said:

Continuation of the existing short term guarantee formula, with its cumulative three per cent betterment factor on top of a full allowance for wage and population increases would have been unduly generous and inconsistent with the Government’s policy of Government public expenditure restraint.

I think we have learned after four years of this unfortunate Government that there is nothing generous about it, so it is not surprising that the Treasurer’s own terms included the words unduly generous’. The best the States can expect is that their allocations will be tied to movements in the CPI as registered in the capital cities of each State. This was a concession wrung from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his Treasurer by two of the protagonists at the Premiers Conference held on 7 December. My own Premier, Neville Wran, was one of those advocates. It was, as the South Australian Premier so aptly described it at the time, a pyrrhic victory- a pretty hollow one.

This Bill is neither one thing nor the other. It is simply a holding operation- a stalling for time. Premier Lowe of Tasmania described the Conference at which this financial agreement was struck as ‘a completely cynical exercise by the

Commonwealth ‘. He said- and we on this side of the House agree- that the Prime Minister was holding off on any long-term decision until after the election. Australians know only too well that this Prime Minister has made a fine art of political expediency and also of political cynicism. The Treasurer, apologising after the Premiers Conference for the short-sighted, tight-fisted taxsharing arrangement that Cabinet had insisted upon, claimed that continuation of the old formula would have hampered the Commonwealth’s capacity to carry out its economic strategy. The doublespeak of it all! Economic strategy? This Government does not have one. Election strategies, yes: Economic strategies, none. The election strategy is calculated to misrepresent, to evade the truth or to twist it, whichever seems the more facilely appropriate at the time. We are painfully aware of this coalition Government’s election strategy, but defining its economic strategy is much harder. One must first nail it down.

This Government’s ad hockery towards financial management is inclined to confuse the onlooker at times. Here are off again on again tax levies and surcharges. Now you see them; now you do not. There are rural subsidies. There was full tax indexation, which became half tax indexation and then no indexation. And what are we up to now? I think we are back to half tax indexation. If there is a definable economic strategy being pursued by this Government, it is one designed to grind the nation to a halt. And what a wonderful success it is! The Treasurer, in his statements to the Press after the Conference, said:

If the States want to spend more money then they can go ahead and raise taxes . . .

And that is what this Bill is all about. It is a cynical ploy to force the Treasurers of the States to raise their own taxes. This indicates a lack of appreciation of the basic nature of inflation. For a government that spouts heavily about its management of the economy and its skill, its expertise in containing inflation, the fact that it is trying to force the States to raise their own taxes indicates that it does not even understand what inflation is all about. One can imagine the haphazard nature of six individual States going off in six individual directions.

The capacity of the Commonwealth to control the national economy under those circumstances would be nil. Such action would have serious implications for wage restraint policies and industrial relations. It would lead to problems of higher after tax wage claims which would subsequently be built into prices. If States were forced to levy surcharges to make up additional revenue, there is nothing to suggest that they would pursue a uniform percentage even. It is possible that a different level would be levied in each State, according to that State’s particular needs. In fact this situation exists in Canada where provincial taxes are levied in addition to the Federal tax. Where there was a substantial differential between the States or in the case of one State levying a surcharge and another State holding back from that possibility, a situation could be created which would be very undesirable insofar as allocations of labour and capital between the States were concerned. It would inevitably mean an exodus from the levying State. We saw this sort of thing happen when the States began altering their death duty policies in 1976. It gave obvious incentives to people to migrate to the State which did not impose such taxes. Lots of people migrated to Queensland. The only reason anyone would want to live with Premier Joh would be that it was cheaper to die in Queensland. That is basically what would happen if the States were forced to levy their own taxes.

Uniform taxation laws introduced in May 1942 were a big step in the right direction. To force the States to start introducing separate income tax- double taxation would be the correct term- would be a most regressive move. Notwithstanding that his State will be approximately $40m worse off in real terms as a result of this legislation, Premier Wran to whom I referred earlier has said that he will certainly resist raising taxes in New South Wales. That Premier Wran was able to make this statement is a testimony to the efficiency and the ability of his Labor Government. This is evident from the fact that there is great activity going on in New South Wales at present, which is generating income for the Government and probably staving off the necessity to raise income taxes in that State.

Mr Goodluck:

– We ‘re a good Government.

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I am glad that the honourable member for Franklin made that observation. He is right. The New South Wales Government is a very good Government. But that position is entirely due to the New South Wales Labor Government’s ability to manage its economy in an imaginative way that escapes this hide-bound coalition Government. The Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott) might well smile. I think he knows that I am telling the truth. When the unemployment figures were released last week, it was evident that New South Wales was faring much better in the overall unemployment situation than the other States. As the newspaper reports put it, there was very little joy for the Federal Government in the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. The ABS figures showed that there are now 414,000 jobless people in this country and double that number if one takes into account the hidden unemployment factor. But it is significant to note that in New South Wales the number of unemployed since March last year has dropped by 8 per cent and, even more encouraging, the drop in the number of youth unemployed is of the order of 18 per cent. Overall, in Australia, there was a drop of 11,000 in the number of young unemployed compared with the same time last year and, of this figure, half was in New South Wales. So New South Wales is truly the premier State. So, Mr Wran, with some of the niftiness for which he is noted, will be able to live with the reductions in personal income tax sharing as outlined in this Bill.

Some of the Liberal Premiers seem less sure of themselves. I would like to quote a few of them. Victoria’s Premier Hamer is on record as saying of the arrangement that it was ‘totally unsatisfactory and totally inadequate’. Sir Charles Court complained that the entitlement for his State was half of nothing’. That is not very much. He was not impressed by the generosity of his Federal colleagues. The South Australian Premier lamented that his State charges ‘were almost certain to rise’. He described the arrangement as disappointing and frugal’. As I have mentioned already, Premier Lowe of Tasmania pinpointed the cynicism implicit in the one-off nature of the amendment in the fact that it left the future as an unknown quantity.

Now whom have I forgotten? I mentioned the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. Oh, it must be Premier Joh. What did Premier Joh say? Well, surprise, surprise! He likes the arrangement. The reason he likes it is that he does not understand it. That is about the only reason why he does like it. But in line with his normal about-face, today’s bouquets will become tomorrow’s brickbats. True, his State will receive an increase of 13.5 per cent over last year, but this is due to an increase in population in that State. Probably all the aged couples are going there to die cheaply. But no tax bonus is included in that increase and there is little cause for praise.

It may well be that, given the Commonwealth’s mean attitude, the States may have to rely on increasing their indirect taxes. But this would be very unfortunate if it did happen. Indirect taxes, amongst other things, are inequitable. They hit the low income earner much harder than the high income earner. Not only that, but indirect taxes which are levied by the States are unevenly distributed. Here I cite a few cases- payroll tax, stamp duty tax, motor vehicle registration, et cetera. They also have a very limited growth potential. All things considered, indirect tax increases would be unsatisfactory. On the Commonwealth scene, we know that several Ministers are on record as expressing a preference for indirect taxes for Commonwealth revenue collecting. If this happens, if personal tax is cut and indirect taxes rise, this would have the effect of drastically reducing the States’ share of collective income tax in the future to an even greater extent than we are seeing here with the introduction of this legislation. The telling point is that we will not know what the Government intends. As I said before, this is a one-off amendment, a holding brief, until, as the Government sees it, it has an election safely behind it. I think the Government might be doomed to disappointment on that point. The Prime Minister’s new federalism has many faces, none of which is appealing to the fair-minded.

We support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis). I will not bother spelling out the full ramifications of it. It is fair to say that, despite the Government’s rhetoric about its generosity in providing funds for the States, the burden of this Government’s economic policies has fallen very heavily on the States. In the period 1975-76 to 1979-80, there was an increase in total Budget outlays of the Commonwealth Government of 45 percent. I hope that the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) is listening because he might learn something. But payments from the Commonwealth to the States and to local government in the same period increased by only 32 per cent. There is a 13 per cent differential there. And that tells the story.

In government, we will repeal stage 2 of the new federalism, and I am sure that all of those Liberal Premiers will be more than delighted when that happens. Although the Federal Government has passed the appropriate legislation to bring about stage 2, as yet no State has brought in enabling legislation. New federalism has failed to take off. It is like the traditional lead balloon. Double taxation is odious. The Federal Government should be making adjustments for growth to cover the shortfall that its policy creates.

In conclusion, I say that this legislation has some of the less attractive features of a classic one-night stand. I am sure that some members opposite know what that is. It has no future. It makes no long term promises. It offers no guarantees. It is a one-off affair and, keeping in mind the recipients’ laments, it leaves one wanting more.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

-In supporting the Bill, which amends the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 I wish to dwell for a few moments on the speech of the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown). It illustrates many of the misconceptions that the Australian Labor Party has in regard to federalism. The Labor Party talks in terms of legislating out stage 2 of federalism, as introduced by this Government, but does not replace it with anything. One must have the fear that its replacement will be a return to the Whitlam formula. Let us look for a moment at what the Whitlam formula meant. It related to things such as regional and urban development and sewerage schemes which were meant for larger capitals and provincial cities, not the smaller towns.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It did all right for your electorate.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– It did nothing for our area at all. It related to regional schemes and to sporting and leisure pursuits. It took the power out of the hands of the States and control out of the hands of the Federal Government. It was simply impossible to control. If we may identify the projects more precisely, perhaps members of the Labor Party will remember the turtle farms, the Regional Employment Development Scheme, the duplication of educational facilities and such activities. That is what deletion of stage 2 by a Labor Government would mean. It would mean a return to the Whitlam federalism, if one may call it that. I prefer to call it centralism. That is what we would have.

Let us consider also the references that have been made in this debate to the Whitlam formula and the betterment factor. How long can a nation persevere with a system that is wrongly based. How far can we take a formula into the future? We are talking about a return to the use of the betterment factor. This is an open-ended system and would replace what the States already have the power to do- that is, to surcharge or to rebate, et cetera. The expression which I do not like and Labor members have used at both Federal and State levels, is ‘double taxation’. I wonder whether they are talking in terms of a surcharge whereby, when there is a rebate in the State, there is no taxation at all. That is the comparison that one has to draw.

There was a contradiction in what the honourable member for Parramatta said about hidden unemployment. Again, two sets of figures are available. Labor members always talk about hidden unemployment and stretch their figures from half a million to a million. On the one hand they wish to spread gloom but on the other speak of the lower unemployment figures in New South Wales last month. Perhaps the honourable member for Parramatta does not realise that a reduction in unemployment levels has occurred all over Australia. That is probably more the result of the Federal Government’s policies than of any actions by the States themselves.

We are discussing a personal income tax sharing with the States to the extent of 39.87 per cent of revenue. That is given to the States unconditionally; it carries with it no conditions as to spending at all. Opposition members seem to have forgotten that additional and quite substantial grants are made under road, water and other assistance schemes. Those grants have not been taken into account. Contrary to the assertion that the financial burden has fallen on the States, I will produce figures to show that the States have done considerably better out of the Commonwealth since 1975-76 than in the years previous to that time. The figures are there to prove that. The State Budgets prove it also.

There have been many changes since 1901, when the Federal Constitution spelt out distinctly the division of responsibilities and financial resources. Since Federation court decisions and Acts of Parliament have changed the interpretation of Federal-State financial relationships. In 1 942 the Commonwealth Government assumed responsibility under uniform taxing arrangements and the States vacated their role in that regard. The States still have constitutional power in respect of the surcharge or rebate that has been debated tonight. That power to tax runs concurrently with the Commonwealth power, but the States have not exercised that right since the introduction of uniform taxation. So surcharging or rebating is nothing new. As far as I can understand, it is still a State constitutional power.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is difficult for you to understand.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– The Australian Labor Party has shown tonight that it does not understand the subject other than to advocate a return to a trite philosophy, one that has been proven useless in the extreme.

I repeat, in May 1942 the Commonwealth uniform tax legislation was introduced. It made the Federal Goverment the sole income taxing authority in Australia. The States were compensated for their loss by tax reimbursement grants, which originally were based on the average collections of income tax in the years 1939-40 and 1940-41. At the June 1959 Premiers Conference it was decided that grants to the States would no longer be regarded as compensation for the vacation of the field of income tax collection. A system of financial assistance grants was established. These were determined annually on the basis of a formula under which the increase in the amount paid to each State was calculated in accordance with the population increase in that State. I might just mention that if Queensland has been advantaged in recent times because of a population increase that has not been entirely to do with the cessation of gift and death duties in that State.

However, there is an old saying that many people vote with their feet and we have found that many people have come from South Australia and New South Wales because of that policy. There was a population increase in each State, an increase in average wages throughout Australia as a whole and a betterment factor which I have already discussed. The betterment factor in the formula, which was to apply to the grants for 1976-77 and subsequent years, was to have been increased from 1.8 per cent to 3 per cent. However, in 1976-77, under the new federalism policy the financial assistance grants were replaced by the States’ personal income tax sharing entitlements. I can safely say that in the period since the States have not lost income to any extent at all. It represents just one area of the total Liberal-National Country Party Government’s federalism policy.

Much has been said tonight about local government and in that field we have seen grants- again open, not subject to conditionsrise from 1.52 per cent to 1.75 per cent and to 2 per cent as from 1 July 1980, of personal income tax sharing. These are administered by State Grants Commission personnel and I must say that in Queensland- and probably the same could be said of the other States- the scheme has worked exceptionally well. The matter has been taken out of State and Federal hands and allocations have been made according to requirements and needs. The moneys so distributed have been well received. Local government has been given that right to participate in the public taxation arrangements, but with it has come greater responsibilities.

Earlier the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) referred to what the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Mr Casey, had described as a plank in his party’s policy. Unfortunately, he made his statement at a most inopportune time, at a pensioners’ meeting. The implication was more political than anything else, regardless of his right to speak on the subject. He promised State assistance in regard to rebates for rates, claiming that that situation existed in other States also. That assertion has been denied by other members tonight.

I feel that the Commonwealth can hold its head high, for honouring a financial commitment, spreading the untied funds to the extent it has and giving responsibilities to the States. In fact this Government is the only one which, as part of its policy, has a real commitment to federalism. The Labor Party’s only commitment to federalism goes to the Whitlam era and involved centralism and the taking of power back to itself. The new federalism policy of our Government has given the States significant freedom from the dictates of Canberra. I think that is what federalism means. The States now enjoy more genuine sovereignty. The funds applied through the Commonwealth to the States are of a greater amount and a higher percentage than at any other time in our history since Federation. Yet the freedom that each State has and exercisesthe right to criticise and to ask for more- is ever availed of by them.

It is an old maxim that the needs or the wants of recipients are never satisfied. While a central government can give more, it will be accepted readily and criticism will be made to get even more. For some State Premiers to complain about an excessive rate of income tax collection by the Commonwealth is to ignore the true and real position; that is, that the Commonwealth collects on its own and the States’ behalf under the uniform tax arrangements. The States then expend the revenues on their own services. The importance of States’ participation in financial and economic responsibility is borne out by the Budget Estimates for the total public sector outlays in Australia for the year ended 30 June 1 978. The figures are as follows: 47 per cent were attributable to the Federal Government; 46 per cent- almost the same- were attributable to the State governments; and 7 per cent were attributable to local government.

I have examined the Budgets of all States, particularly their combined revenue collections, which provide some very interesting figures. These Budgets show that over the years that this Federal Government has been in office grants from the Commonwealth to the States have increased from $5,145 billion in 1974-75 to $8,724 billion in 1977-78 and to an estimated $9,649 billion in 1978-79. Therefore, the Commonwealth’s contributions have risen from the Whitlam 1974-75 base by 69 per cent in 1977-78 and by 88 per cent in 1978-79. In the same period the States’ own taxation revenue rose by 54 per cent in 1977-78, or 15 per cent less than the Commonwealth’s contributions, and by 65 per cent in 1978-79, or 23 per cent less. So the burden of States’ finances has fallen fairly and squarely on the Commonwealth. It has given more and the States have been asked to collect less. At the same time the States have been providing a tremendous barrage of criticism of the Federal Government.

The States’ collections of their own revenue from taxation declined from 36.6 per cent of the total in 1974-75 to 34.4 per cent in 1977-78. The Commonwealth’s contribution went from 63.4 per cent to 65.6 per cent. That is in connection with all contributions- the arrangements of the grants, the open-ended grants and all the other specific purpose grants. Whilst the Commonwealth, through its taxing powers, accepts responsibility for raising taxes and for managing the economy, it also has to bear the burden of the criticism for all this, particularly taxation, and particularly from the States, which are notably reluctant to generate their own revenue and to accept expenditure restraints on themselves. In fact over the three years the States, through increased Federal funding, have lifted payroll tax exemption levels, abolished or relieved State death duties and gift duties, reduced land taxes and abolished road maintenance tax. Their private enterprise functions increased their losses from $259m in 1974-75 to $4 12m in 1977-78, in spite of the fact that the Commonwealth had taken over the railway systems of South Australia and Tasmania, which requires a $70m subsidy from the Commonwealth for expenditure previously borne by those States.

The States have been given the right, under Commonwealth legislation, either to rebate or to surcharge personal income tax to residents within the States. It is difficult to accept that the Federal tax system is so finely tuned to the requirements of all Australians that it conforms entirely to State requirements. Yet the fact that no State has surcharged or given a rebate shows that this must be the case. Those States which cry for lower taxation can in fact provide it just by rebating under the present law. They can rebate the tax to their own residents, but they do not do so. Yet the complaint is still heard although the right to rebate has been in existence since Federation. The States can share economic responsibility by collecting revenue from sources quite apart from the income tax sharing arrangement. Greater royalties from mining enterprise will share Australian land-based assets with the States’ people. Private enterprises, such as transport, should be made to pay their own way to a greater extent. There is not only a reluctance to accept alternative methods of funding revenue; there has actually been a departure from accepted taxation methods for political advantage- I instance death duties and transport fees- and all this has been done while retaining the right to criticise the Commonwealth for over-taxation.

I also believe that with the new federalism policy and the transfer of power back to the States there should be a transfer of services traditionally provided by States. In spite of larger open-ended grants, the Commonwealth duplicates the services of education, health, roads and housing, to name just a few. The duplication is an enormous cost just in the Public Service required to maintain the services. For instance, for every dollar that the Commonwealth collects in all forms of taxation and revenue, education takes 10.5c and health takes 12.3c. If some oversight of these services now duplicated is necessary, perhaps one oversight department would be sufficient and more control could then be passed back to the States. The restraints on the Public Service exercised by the Commonwealth have not been exercised by any of the States. Taking into account the transfer from State-owned railways to the Commonwealth of some 9,500 personnel in 1978, there has been a decrease in the Commonwealth sector. In the combined States the increase in the Public Service has been of the magnitude of some 63,000 people. This massive shift in services from the States to the Commonwealth by the Whitlam Labor Government has not yet been reversed. The people of Australia voted out that Government because of its centralist tendencies, amongst other things. The effect of the new federalism should be to reverse this procedure which was set in motion by the Whitlam Labor Government. Stages 1 and 2 of federalism have been implemented. The States have had a transfer of funds. They have open to them their own taxation revenues. They have the numbers in the Public Service to carry out these traditional services that they once had. It is now time to implement the stage which transfers the services, which lessens the Commonwealth’s expenditure and which gives the States their original constitutional and sovereign responsibilities.

I come now to Loan Council approvals, which are all part of the federalism policy. An example of how the new federalism could be made to work and how the States might become more responsibly involved in economic management is in the new attitude to Loan Council approvals. By a decision of the Premiers Conference in December 1979 these approvals of $799.5m went away from many of the traditional areas of Loan Council approvals to loans to the various States for specific projects. This type of thing will require a more responsible attitude to cost recoveries by the States borrowing for capital projects to ensure a sufficient return to redeem the debt and to service the interest charges.

The Burdekin Dam proposal, which affects my electorate, is one which Queensland has submitted to the Commonwealth for financial assistance. To my knowledge the extent of State participation or of Commonwealth assistance has not been spelt out in the submission, but to the credit of the Queensland Government money has been appropriated for preliminary works. Water resources, as we know, is the sovereign right of the States. The Burdekin Dam has great significance for Queensland but will also be a great contribution to the wealth of the whole of Australia. The State could be granted the right to borrow funds for its construction with responsibility for redemption and payment of interest being that of the State. The Commonwealth, in addition to granting permission, could encourage Australians to lend by making the interest earned tax exempt. Perhaps another area where we could get the real co-operative federalism working for Australians would be participation in the Loan Fund contribution and tax free interest on any funds contributed by Australian residents. This could well be a suggestion for the setting up of a proper co-operative federalism scheme to work with other services required by the States to stimulate development, employment and investment. I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill. I believe it is another land mark in this Government’s federalism policy. It is positive as against Labor’s policy which we see, if we look back into history, proved to be disastrous.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-This evening we are hearing a very anti-federalist-

Motion (by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. J. D. M. Dobie)

AYES: 66

NOES: 31

Majority……. 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put-

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Willis’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Hon. J. D. M. Dobie)

AYES: 68

NOES: 34

Majority……. 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 1746

AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUGS

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 18 March, on the following paper presented by Mr Mackellar:

Drugs- Report of the Royal Commission of InquiryMinisterial Statement, 18 March 1980- and on motion by Mr John McLeay:

That the House take note of the papers:

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

-I commend the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) and the Government on the quick response to this most important report. The response has been very quick and prompt in two ways. Firstly, when the interim report was provided to the Government, the recommendation was to disband the Narcotics Bureau. This was duly disbanded, well ahead of the presentation of the final report. In the final report made by the Minister to this House on 18 March, he listed quite a number of recommendations made by the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs that the Government has already accepted or is in the process of accepting. We have to accept that the Government cannot respond immediately to all of the 246 recommendations in that report. Many of these recommendations are really the province of the State governments.

However, what is encouraging in the Minister’s statement is that the Government does support the concept of a national strategy and that there is a need for this national strategy to be realistically implemented for Federal and State cooperation. In any national strategy must be included the question of licit or legal drugs as well as illicit drugs. This concept of a national strategy and the inclusion of both the licit and illicit use of drugs is similar to the major recommendation by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in its report ‘Drug Abuse in Australia- an Intoxicated Society?’. The Minister also noted that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has written to the States for the Drug Education Sub-Committee of the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence to be the forum for discussing these recommendations. One point that is worth recalling is that the Royal Commission recommended that this was not a particularly suitable body for the future use of the concept of the national strategy.

But it is important and significant in that this Royal Commission was a truly national one. There were two other royal commissions in New South Wales and South Australia as well as the Senate Committee of inquiry. Hence any national strategy or approach to the question of the illicit use of drugs in this country must be on a national basis. Similarly, the Minister was able to report in those recommendations concerning police matters and forensic science that the Commonwealth-State Ministerial Police Advisory Council will be used once again as the vehicle for getting Federal and State co-operation. One of the positive points to which one can refer at the moment is increased co-operation between the Federal and State police in the matter of the provision of working with each other, obtaining necessary information, et cetera.

When one talks about a national strategy following a national royal commission, there is the possibility of both danger and frustration because the Federal Government cannot act alone in our system. Somehow or other people expect the Government to act alone. If there has been a national inquiry and people say: ‘We have a national problem and we are looking for a national strategy’, people expect that the Federal Government must automatically possess the power. Under the Australian Constitution, it does not.

With so many recommendations- some of them quite far reaching- time will be needed for the implementation of those recommendations that are ultimately seen to be acceptable on a national level. On 18 March, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), when making an initial response on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, made an interesting comment. He referred to where the item would be placed on the Notice Paper after the initial statement had been made and debate had ensued. He had this to say:

  1. . which, by tomorrow, will have some 80 items listed on it-

That is, the Notice Paper. He was inferring that the item would be dropped. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition has the manners to acknowledge that far from this going to the bottom of the Notice Paper and far from it being forgotten or ignored, at the earliest possible convenience after the Parliament resumed the debate on this important issue is continuing. It would be interesting to know what the Labor Party’s response as distinct from just bland criticism really is to this matter. I understand- I will be interested in the comments of the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) on this matter- the Labor Party has referred this report to three of its committees. In other words, it is adopting the same sensible process adopted by the Government, that is, the need to deliberate on and to discuss these particular points.

One would have more confidence in the Labor Party and in its future in this regard if it also checked with its State opposition leaders or Premiers- whichever they may be- on their attitude, particularly on the question of the legalisation of cannabis. There seems to be a few contradictory attitudes on this matter amongst Labor Party members. Will they adopt the South Australian recommendation; will they adopt and support the Federal recommendation; or what will they do? It is not just good enough for the Labor Party to say that the Government has not moved quickly enough. I believe that the Minister has demonstrated that this is not the case. It it up to the Labor Party to state what its policy will be on these recommendations, including the question whether the use of cannabis in this country should be decriminalised.

Personally, I am very pleased that the Government is supporting the recommendation of this Royal Commission that there be no change to the prohibition on the use of cannabis where this concerns Federal law. There are 246 recommendations in the Commission’s report. I am sure it will be pleasing for everybody to hear that I have no intention to comment on all of them. There are just a few upon which I wish to comment.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– One hundred and thirty-eight?

Mr LLOYD:

– No, the honourable member is still far too high. There has been considerable comment, both in the Royal Commission and in other inquiries, in particular the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources in its report on ‘The Adequacy of Quarantine’ in this country, on the adequacy of surveillance. It has been acknowledged in all of these reports that it is difficult if not impossible to be adequate in the short term; and that the question of immigration, quarantine and drugs is tremendously important to this country for defence purposes. So with four important policy areas it must be a high priority for this Parliament to be considering.

In the two reports to which I referred the shortcomings of the present system and situation are highlighted. I refer to the reports of the Senate Committee and the Royal Commission on some of these points. Senator Thomas who is the Chairman of the Senate Committee- this is not to be found in the report but I have his permission to mention it- said that the evidence received by the Senate Committee in Darwin was to the effect that because the civil aircraft, which are used as part of the aerial coastal surveillance network of the northern and northwestern coasts, was leaving on a set timetable it was very easy for any possible aerial intruder or intruder by sea to find out each day at what time that plane flew along the coast. Then there were the other 23 hours of the day in which to get in and out of the country. That seems to be a fairly absurd situation. Senator Thomas said that he hoped that the situation had now changed but that he had not heard anything to the effect that it had changed. The Senate Committee in its report referred to the lack of back-up facilities for surveillance. I wish to quote briefly from that report. It stated:

The present situation in northern Australia concerns the Committee as no effective back-up exists for the coastal area from Cairns to Geraldton. There are no RAAF helicopters stationed at Darwin and there is no Customs launch located at either Darwin or in the Torres Strait which could be utilised in an emergency situation. A recent situation occurred at Darwin where two Quarantine officers were forced to spend 36 hours stranded on an isolated beach because the Department of Health was unable to charter a private helicopter at short notice.

If the Department of Defence were to undertake coastal surveillance and provide back-up facilities then additional funds for that purpose would have to be made available.

The new aerial surveillance program will be subject to a major review within two years; however, the Committee recommends that some aspects of the surveillance program be reviewed immediately, particularly in regard to the training of observers, the need for staggered flight times and the provision of the necessary facilities to respond to surveillance sightings. During the Committee’s visit to Darwin, Thursday Island and Cairns it was clearly demonstrated that no adequate quarantine back-up facilities existed and the current policy of depending on private contract arrangements is completely inadequate.

The Minister in his comments referred to the fact that there was to be a major review of the civil sector of aerial surveillance in 198 1. 1 would suggest that because of the shortcomings of our surveillance, indicated in both the Commission’s report and the Senate Committee report, that review should take place this year.

The second point to which I want to refer relates to drug detection and awareness. The Commission commended the use of dogs to detect the presence of drugs and recommended their greater use in this detection.

Mr James:

– Hot dogs?

Mr LLOYD:

– Just well-trained dogs. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to a serious flaw in the use of dogs. I wish to relate a personal experience.

Mr Martyr:

– Did you get bitten?

Mr LLOYD:

– Just wait for it. Several members of the Government members’ rural committee recently visited New Zealand at their own expense to discuss matters of mutual concern with parliamentary counterparts in that country. On our return from New Zealand, as part of the flight procedure, all of the passengers were lined up with our hand baggage. The due ceremony was conducted, with the dogs being walked slowly along and pointed in particular at certain other Federal members and me to see that we were not trying to bring in any illicit drugs. I was proud of this operation. I thought it was tremendous. Here we were making real progress. At that moment the air crew, both the pilots and the hostesses- the Minister should take notice of this- walked past with all their baggage. They were not subjected to the detection process by the dogs. There was an immediate reaction from the people. There cannot be a double standard. These people are tempted, because of the special provisions made available, to capitalise on the special arrangements and to bring in drugs. I believe that if we are genuineusing dogs appeared to be a very good method of detecting the bringing in of illicit drugs by aircraft then everybody who has been on a aircraft has to be subjected to the same surveillance. I strongly recommend to the Minister that that matter be taken in hand.

I also note that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) has stated that the new passports that will be issued in the near future will include a warning about bringing illicit drugs into this country. I believe that that is a good move. I commend the Minister. I would suggest to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he also include some information concerning the bringing in by people, quite often in ignorance, of food which could be diseased and create tremendous quarantine problems for this country in the future. I also make reference, as did the Minister in his speech and as did the commissioners in their recommendations, to the increasing co-operation with South East Asian countries and to the assistance that is provided to them in the detection of, we will call it, some of the big wheels in the drug business. There have been some obviously wellpublicised arrests of Australians in South East Asia. I have personal sympathy for the way in which these people are being treated in some of the prisons in those countries, but I must say that at least the well-publicised nature of the arrests and the trial will, I hope, have a deterrent effect on others who may be similarly tempted. I wish to conclude on the point that quite a few other members are making in relation to the fact that we have now had four separate inquiries, reports and recommendations into this problem in

Australia. There are no magic answers; there is no way in which one government- that is, the Federal Government- by itself can introduce a national strategy or bring about a satisfactory result. I support the statement.

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

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

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

-The Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs has produced a massive report of five volumes containing 1,700 pages, plus a secret annex which we apparently are not going to see. It reflects great application, hard work and diligence by Mr Justice Williams. At this stage given the fact that we have 246 detailed recommendations all that we can do is attempt to make some overall assessment of the report. It is in scope superficially impressive. As I say, there are 246 recommendations and they cover most aspects of the drug problem.

The Adelaide Advertiser of 20 March 1980, in noting this report, said:

Nobody is any longer in doubt about the seriousness of the drug problem facing this country.

I wish to take issue with this contention first of all. Certainly, the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) seemed to be in some doubt about the seriousness of the problem. We had from him a short and rather shallow introductory speech. If we examine that speech we will find it almost entirely lacking in substantive argument. Again I refer to what Dr Leslie Drew, who is the Senior Adviser in Drug Dependence of the Australian Department of Health, said in a recent address. He said:

Narcotic use has been a problem amongst the young for the last 10 years, but, as a problem, it has remained more or less confined to persons who had other serious psycho-social problems.

He was saying two things: Firstly that this problem affects a limited segment of the population, and, secondly, that it affects those members of the population who already have serious psychosocial problems. Indeed, in that same speech Dr Drew went on to point out that only a few of those young people become dependent on a drug-taking lifestyle. Dr Drew concluded therefore that currently the attention given to the drug problem far outweighs its real importance.

I think that in this Parliament we have to take notice of some of these considerations. Again, despite the lip-service that the Williams committee pays to licit drugs, to the legal drugs, its focus is overwhelmingly on the illegal drugs, particularly the narcotics. Very few- I think fewer than half a dozen- of the 246 recommendations even refer to the problems of alcohol and tobacco. I think that the Baume Committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, made a much more important contribution to this major aspect of the drug problem in this country. The Baume Committee stated:

Alcohol is the major drug of abuse in Australia. It now constitutes a problem of epidemic proportions.

The Sackville Commission in South Australia stated:

It is impossible to develop national policies for ‘drugs’ whilst excluding alcohol and tobacco from inquiry.

As I said, some lip-service is paid by the Williams report to this problem but there are certainly no firm proposals offered in the way in which they are provided by both the Baume Committee and the Sackville Commission in South Australia.

Finally there are far greater social problems facing Australian society than the problems dealt with at great length in the Williams report. We have to think about the appropriate priorities, about the allocation of limited resources in this society. For instance, I wish that this Government had presented us with five fat volumes on youth unemployment. We have had nothing comparable in relation to what is undoubtedly the most important social problem facing young people in Australia. In terms of extent, the seriousness and the long term repercussions, youth unemployment is a far more serious problem for young people in this country than is the drug problem. But we have not had from this Government anything comparable in size on youth unemployment to this massive report concerned primarily with narcotic drugs. There is of course a relationship here because there is growing evidence that the problems of unemployment amongst young people are exacerbating the drug problem amongst young people.

I do not wish to argue that in this country we do not have a major problem with illegal drug usage and a bigger one with legal drug usage, but it is important that we should not exaggerate that problem, not feed the irrational anxieties that exist in society. It is easy for unscrupulous persons to feed the existing hysteria about the drug threat. One major concern of responsible legislators should be to reduce community anxiety, to encourage a community climate in which rational decisions can be made about the drug problem. That I believe is a major task for this Parliament.

Despite the many qualities of the Williams report- I would be the first to admit to these- it has, I think, one major defect and this leads to a major weakness in contributing to a rational approach to the drug problem in Australia. There is a major imbalance in the report in that it focuses not on the drug problem as such but on the enforcement of the drug sanctions. In some ways it is rather like having the bath water without the baby.

Let me make three points about that. First of all, the largest of the three substantive volumes of the Williams report, Book B, is devoted entirely to law enforcement. At least half of Book A concerns the sanction side and though Book C is ostensibly primarily devoted to treatment and education, the judge is clearly much happier when he moves to techniques of control, to drug detector dogs, to ultra-sound techniques, to communications interceptions and to the problems of forged prescriptions. It is equally clear that Mr Justice Williams is much happier intellectually with the narrower issues of law enforcement than the broader health and philosophical issues. For instance he is quite devastating on the inadequacies of coastal surveillance and very effective on the defects of the defunct Narcotics Bureau and of the creeping corruption in State police forces involved in drug enforcement. He is, I think, very effective in those fields though his section on police corruption does worry one, given his willingness in the report to vest very great powers in the police with reference to drug enforcement activity. The good judge has also a fascination with the technological wizardry available to police in their battle with the drug traffickers. Again, I think he is excellent on those sections. In many ways he is right in stressing reforms of organisation, improving information flows and in better functional arrangements as an answer to fighting the drug trafficker.

On the other hand he is manifestly uneasy with some of the philosophical questions, such questions as: ‘Can the non-medical use of drugs be eliminated? Is such use of drugs improper? Why should we be concerned about drug use? What should be the goals of our drug policy?’ On these he is, I think, intellectually disappointing. Too often we just get a string of conflicting ideas without very much argument from the judge. I take up on this issue the point raised by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and that is the vexed question of cannabis. In the report some 60 pages of other people’s views on cannabis are presented. Then follows after virtually no argument an intellectual abdication. The Commission recommended:

No relaxation of the present Australian prohibition on cannabis be made for ten years from the commencement of the operation of the Drug Information Centres recommended in Part XIV.

At the expiration of the ten years the legal prohibition against cannabis be reviewed by the Commonwealth and State Governments acting in concert.

I think we have to compare those recommendations with a much more tightly argued chapter in the Baume report, which concluded by a majority with this recommendation:

That the Commonwealth and the States enact cannabis legislation which recognises the significant differences between opiate narcotics and cannabis in their health effects and in the criminal impact on users and the community.

I think again whatever honourable members views about the issue and whatever they think of the conclusion, the argument of the Sackville report is even more impressive on cannabis. It, of course, advocated a partial prohibition model, that is, a discouragement of cannabis use but without criminal sanctions

The enforcement concerns of the Williams report must be balanced against these other issues. Indeed, I think it would be unwise for the Australian Government to develop a national strategy on drugs simply by using the Williams report. I believe that it must be supplemented by both the Baume report and the Sackville report, which have very different perspectives. I believe that they supplement the Williams report. Of course, in a way the focus of Mr Justice Williams on law enforcement is understandable because this partly relates to Federal powers. In many ways it is one of the unfortunate aspects of federalism that the States are very much responsible for the law in this field whilst enforcement against traffickers particularly at the customs barrier and immediately behind it is very much a Commonwealth task. But, as I say, I think it would be unwise for any Australian government simply to rely on this report with its emphasis on law enforcement.

Why do I say that? 1 am not critical of many of the law enforcement proposals of the Williams report. I believe that they contain the key elements of a law enforcement strategy against drug trafficking in this country. I do not support them all in detail. I think anyone who is concerned with the liberty and privacy of individuals must worry about some of the extension of police powers and worry about necessary ways of effectively controlling them. But I think there is much in the broad elements of the Williams strategy, that is in a massive co-operative machinery involving customs, Commonwealth Police and State police, in the development of effective drug intelligence centres, in more effective coastal surveillance provisions, in developments of drug information centres, in a responsible extension of police powers, in drug law uniformity- though I hope that drug law uniformity will not be based on the lowest conservative denominator because I do no think that is desirable. Nevertheless without that law enforcement strategy being complemented by significant changes in policy towards drug users, that policy against the traffickers is doomed to failure. Mr Justice Williams concludes:

The Commission believes that if its recommendations are implemented with good will and intelligence, the cost of the Commission will prove to be an investment bearing impressive dividends.

I think if we rely simply on the Williams strategy Mr Justice Williams will be disappointed. A law enforcement strategy will not succeed alone. It needs significant supplementation on the user side. It will fail for one simple reason, a reason which is at the heart of any free enterprise market whether it be for food or drugs, and that is the impact of patterns of supply and demand on the level of profit. No doubt if the Williams proposals are implemented a greater amount of heroin and cannabis will be interdicted and a greater number of traffickers will be brought to book. But what will be the effect on the market of that success? Demand is basically inelastic and the Williams’ proposals do little about the demand side. Thus the price of heroin and cannabis will rise to meet the demand and to cover the greater risks involved for traffickers. Therefore, the profit for those traffickers who can get their merchandise through will increase for those reasons. What will be the result of this increase in profit? There will be a greater criminal involvement. Blackmail, corruption and murder will go up to safeguard the traffickers against the greater risks. High profits will attract more heroin and cannabis to the Australian market from overseas because the international traffickers will see a greater profit to be made here. So though we may interdict a greater amount of heroin and cannabis as a result of this law enforcement, it will be part of a greater volume attracted into this country as a result of the high profits. That is, we will create a magnet situation unless we tackle the demand side as well as the supply side. Unless we not only tackle the traffickers but also provide alternatives for users, our efforts are doomed to failure.

In concluding I think we have to think about two major features on the user side. First of all we have to use this opportunity at least to take cannabis out of the same category as the hard drugs. We have to make that distinction in some way. Some of us would want to go farther, others not so far; but we have to separate cannabis from the hard drugs. Secondly, we have to think seriously about the provision under adequate medical supervision of hard drugs to addicts. Both of those options will tackle the demand end. If we are doing both things, trying to cope with the demand problem on one side and trying to tackle the traffickers on the other, we have some hope of success. But if we simply follow the enforcement line, in ten years we will be in a worse position than we are in today.

Debate interrupted.

page 1751

ADJOURNMENT

Mort Bay- Olympic Games Boycott -Immigration- Office of National Assessments- Liquefied Petroleum Gas

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

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Tonight I want to raise the situation at Mort Bay which is located in the electorate of my colleague, the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon). I understand that he wants to discuss the matter also. I raise the matter because I have been to the electorate recently both with the honourable member and privately and have looked at the cramped conditions at Mort Bay. For many years the residents of that area have had to put up with the Australian National Line carting freight to Mort Bay through the Balmain shopping centre. It has come to my notice that an arrogant decision has been made by the Department of Defence that it wants to acquire this site. I might say that I have just received a reply to a question concerning Mort Bay which I placed on notice on 18 March 1980. 1 asked the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson):

Has his Department been notified of a proposal for the Department of Defence to acquire part or all of the property presently occupied by the Australian National Line at Mort Bay near Sydney, N.S.W.

The Minister replied that it had and he set out various details indicating that he refused to carry out an environmental impact statement into the proposal. I ask that this question and answer be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows- (Question No. 5650)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment the following question on notice on 1 8 March 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has his Department been notified of a proposal for the Department of Defence to acquire part or all of the property presently occupied by the Australian National Line at Mort Bay near Sydney. N.S.W.
  2. If so, has he or his Department been provided with information as described in paragraph 2. 1 of the Administrative Procedures under the Environment Protection ( Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 for the purposes of determining the necessity of an environmental impact statement on the proposal.
  3. If this information has been provided, will he make it available to the public.
  4. If the relevant information has been provided; has he or his Department determined whether an environmental impact statement will be required; if so, (a) what has been determined, (b) what are the reasons for this decision and (c) did he consult with any (i) department or authority of New South Wales or (ii) local authority as provided for in paragraph 3.3 of the Administrative Procedures under the Act for the purposes of assisting in the determination of whether an environmental impact statement was required.
Mr Thomson:

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. No.

  3. (a) On 27 February 1980, 1 determined that the preparation and submission of an environmental impact statement was not required to meet the object of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act.

    1. This determination was made on the basis of the information provided under paragraph 2.1 of the Environment Protection Administrative Procedures. The principal adverse environmental impact of the former ANL operation at Mort Bay resulted from the use of residential streets by large numbers of articulated vehicles. The information provided indicated that use of the site by the Department of Defence will result in markedly less articulated vehicle traffic and less overall environmental intrusion. The proposed Defence use of the site will be consistent with the current zoning which is Waterfront-Industrial. In addition, the relocation of Army elements to Mort Bay will allow the release to the State Government, under recently completed land exchange agreements, of land at Middle Head and possibly at Woolwich.
    2. (i) Consultations between officers of the NSW State Pollution Control Commission and the Department of Science and the Environment took place prior to my determination.
    3. (ii) Details of consultation with the Leichhardt Council and the Council’s attitude to the proposal were contained in the Department of Defence information supplied to the Department of Science and the Environment under paragraph 2.1 of Environment Protection Administrative Procedures.
Mr UREN:

-I thank the House. One of the reasons I raise this matter tonight is that I want to read into Hansard a letter from the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) to the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). I will table the letter after I have read it. I have informed the Minister for Transport, who is at the table, that I would be mentioning the matter tonight. In his letter the Minister stated:

My dear Minister,

Thank you for your letter of 21 February 1980-

I might say that the letter that Mr Hunt has written is dated 4 March- advising me of your intention to acquire ANL’s Mort Bay terminal for defence purposes. I understand that the proposition is to include both the freehold area and the leasehold area.

As far as ANL is concerned there would be real advantages in this being done as soon as possible as the cash flow from its disposal would be of assistance at this time. I might explain that ANL, for a number of reasons, is experiencing pressures on its cash resources and these have led to a substantial increase in its overdraft. Efforts are now being made to have the overdraft reduced to manageable proportions.

Copies of this letter are being sent to our colleagues the Minister for Administrative Services and the Minister for Science and the Environment.

Kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

(RALPH J. HUNT)

I now table the letter. If honourable members examine it the real feelings of -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Is the honourable member for Reid seeking leave to table the letter?

Mr UREN:

– No, I do not need it. I am tabling it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member requires leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

Mr UREN:

– I table the document because I want to show that it is an authentic copy of a letter. The Minister shows his real feelings about the people of Balmain and Mort Bay. He wants to get the money in his hands. It will cost something like $5m to develop an area of about 8 hectares of land which is presently owned by ANL and the Maritime Services Board. The people of that area want to see that foreshore land made into parkland and the establishment of some residential housing. This will be explained more fully by my colleague, the honourable member for Sydney, who will speak later. I refer to the arrogance of the bureacrats to determine with no reference to residents what should happen in this area. It is about time that the Government gave some consideration to people who live in an area which has been overbuilt and which lacks parks and recreation areas. This Government should give the matter greater consideration and show some humility because the whole of the Sydney Harbour foreshore needs more parklands.

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

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-I rise to speak because it is a somewhat historic occasion. This evening, for the first time, a State Olympic Council in Australia has voted in support of a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games. I am proud that the Tasmanian Olympic Council has come out strongly in favour of a boycott of the Games because it realises, as does the majority of members of this House, that the national security of Australia is now involved in the decision as to whether or not Australia should participate in the 1 980 Moscow Olympics.

I have read many reports of the discussions and debates which took place in the United States of America in 1936 on whether or not the United States should participate in the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. It is a matter of history that by a mere11/2 votes the United States resolved to take part in those Games. It is an interesting sequel that barely six weeks ago in West Germany a public opinion poll was conducted into whether the people of West Germany believed that a boycott of the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games would have had an effect on the policies of Adolf Hitler. Of the people polled, 56 per cent expressed the view that had the 1936 Olympic Games been boycotted by the world, the policies of Hitler would have been slowed down and- I ask honourable members to listen to this- World War II might have been averted. It is a matter of extreme significance that by a two to one vote the United States Olympic Committee voted to boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games. At the end of this week the Australian Olympic Committee will have to make a decision. I wish to urge upon it that it chooses on the side of right, that it chooses on the side of national security and on the side of international peace.

I have been involved as an amateur sports administrator in athletics, boxing and rowing. I am currently a State amateur boxing referee and would have been eligible for selection as an Australian Olympic referee had I chosen to sit for certain examinations which were to be held this year. As one who believes in amateur sport and who has supported amateur sport in this country for over 20 years, as one who was a competitor and an administrator and as one who has raised funds for every Olympiad since 1956,I want to say that I do not respond lightly to the comment that I am a politician who is not interested in sport. I am sick and tired of Olympic administrators saying that we should not bring politics into sport. Yet, they turn a blind eye to the Soviet Union which has brought murder into the Olympic Games. The basic rule of the ancient Olympiad was that the host country would not in any way, shape or form be engaged in warfare. The second rule was that bordering states that were engaged in warfare would stop their warfare to permit athletes to pass through their territories to get to the Olympic Games. It is the Soviet Union which has brought politics into sport; it is the Soviet Union which has brought murder and aggression into the Olympic Games. What right does it have to condemn the world when the world says: ‘You are not a fit and proper country to host the 1980 Olympics’.

The vote to be taken next Saturday is a critical vote. I urge the Australian Olympic Committee to follow the lead of Tasmania which recognises that the 1980 Olympic Games must be boycotted if mankind is to have any chance of peace in the 1980s. The Soviet Union has created the situation of difficulty. The Soviet Union has created the problem. I hope that Australians will stand up and be counted as people in the United States were counted when the vote was taken last weekend.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I echo the sentiments of my colleague, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) in regard to Mort Bay. I would not call the situation a dispute yet, but in the short time available to me, I would like to make some comments on the matter about which I have a very sincere grievance. This matter concerns an area known as Mort Bay which is situated in Balmain, New South Wales, and which is part of the Sydney electorate. The Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), in a statement in this House on 25 March 1980 as recorded at page 1142 of Hansard announced that the area known as Mort Bay would be taken over by the Department of Defence from the Australian National Line. The Department intends to acquire this land, despite protests from residents, the Leichhardt Council and State and Federal members of parliament.

As some sort of appeasement, the Minister announced at the same time that the Federal Government would release Commonwealth land at Middle Head for open space. It is pretty obvious that the Minister knows very little about the geography of the Sydney region. The offer of land at Middle Head, in the heart of the wealthy North Shore Liberal stronghold, was like waving a red rag at a bull to the residents of Balmain. The people of the inner city and those on the south side of the Harbour are fed up with the shabby treatment they receive in comparison. Is it because Mort Bay is in a Labor electorate that this Government sees fit to take it over and to maintain industry in an area which is already choked with industry and desperate for the kind of open space which is being offered to northern residents? Can this Government be so petty and so despicable as to deny residents in a Labor electorate a mere 8 hectares of land while it willingly hands over more than 300 hectares to residents in Liberal electorates? Good luck to them at our expense.

For many months now, I, together with State and local politicians and local residents, have tried my hardest to co-operate with this Government on the Mort Bay issue. My dealings were initially with the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay). I suggested compromises which might have been acceptable to both the residents and the Government. But did this Government co-operate? Did it attempt to compromise? No, it did not. We found out on 25 March that the discussions were all a sham. This Government had long ago made up its mind that it wanted Mort Bay for defence. So it fell to the Minister for Defence to announce the fate of Mort Bay. I have already expressed in this chamber my belief that the residents of Mort Bay and of the Balmain area will not wear the Government’s decision. I have personally warned the Minister that his plans will only cause trouble. But trouble is the mildest way of putting it. The Leichhardt Council and the Balmain residents have now declared war on the Department of Defence. These people know that if Mort Bay goes now they will never get it back. And they will fight this Government. The battle of Mort Bay has not even started yet. I support their battle. I urge all member of this House who think enough to care about the quality of life of Australians to support their battle. It is not good enough for this Government to ride roughshod over Labor voters. It is not fair; it is not decent. Everybody knows that the Harbour foreshores in the inner city are crowded out with industry now. I say to the Government: Give some of this precious land back to the people.

If the Department of Defence is so keen and so eager for land with good access to Cockatoo Island Dockyard as the Minister states, let the Department of Defence acquire land at Hunters Hill in the electorate of the Treasurer (Mr Howard). That is close to the Cockatoo Island Dockyard. But will this Government acquire land in Liberal electorates? Not on your life. It does not care about unemployment in Labor electorates. It does not care about open space in Labor electorates. With the Treasurer sitting shakily in the seat where the former New South Wales Liberal leader Peter Coleman lost out in the last State election, he must be scared to lose a single vote just for the sake of defending

Australia’s shores. If this Government is really serious and really sincere about defence, let it build its facilities in its own backyard. It should stop grabbing the land which is most precious to the people on the other side of the Harbour. The residents of Mort Bay are not going to take the invasion of the Army into Mort Bay. We have experienced already the kind of battle that the people of Balmain can wage when they protested about the semi-trailers carrying containers through Balmain. This time the fight will be more bitter, more vicious. The residents of Balmain do not want the Army. I support them. I call on this Government to stop the invasion of Balmain. I call on it to give the land back to the people to whom it belongs.

I have discussed this matter with the Minister for Defence and I must state that today he sent to me correspondence, the contents of which I have conveyed to the Leichhardt Council. I have also sent a copy of the correspondence to the Council today. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the letter to me from the Minister for Defence and a copy of the letter to me from the Botany Independent Action Group, the President of which is N. Hillier and the Secretary of which is W. Apps. I have spoken to the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) who is at the table and he has agreed to the incorporation of the documents.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

MINISTER FOR DEFENCE

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Mr McMahon,

I understand that you have become aware of rumours circulating within your electorate which suggest that the Army is to move into the ANL terminal site at Mort Bay on Monday, 14 April 1980.

I am writing to assure you that no decision whatsoever has been taken regarding the timing of control of the site passing to the Army.

No decision in this respect will be taken until New South Wales authorities have had a reasonable time in which to consider the assignment to the Commonwealth of the ANL’s lease on that part of the site owned by the Maritime Services Board.

Yours sincerely,

D.J.KILLEN

MrJ.L. McMahon, M.P.,

Commonwealth Parliament Offices,

Chifley Square,

Sydney, NSW 2000

BOTANY INDEPENDENT ACTION GROUP SECRETARY: W. APPS

PRESIDENT: MRS N. HILLIER

3 QUEEN STREET

BOTANY 2019

PH. 666 4961

Mr J. McMahon, M.P.

Commonwealth Offices

Chifley Square

Sydney 2000

Dear Sir,

The Botany Council has made a recommendation for a Transit Terminal to be developed on the Botany Bay Coal Loader Site. As a means of removing parked semi-trailers from our streets, and we do commend them for this action.

However, we the above group believe the Maritime Services Board, will not permit any facility on that site which does not require the use of the port.

After being made aware that once again Mort Street, Balmain is to be invaded by the military this time in their attempt to obtain the ANL terminal for a army base.

It appears to this group, if the Army could take up residence on the Botany Bay Coal Loader Site, this would help to protect the environment of our area against any future vicious attempts to further downgrade our area with the building of a coal loader.

We are living in a disaster area, without adequate fire protection and the bulk of NSW resources are stored and manufactured (chemicals and oil) out here, and the army could be of tremendous assistance if there was ever a threat to those resources.

At the same time perhaps such an arrangement could help Balmain to procure the ANL terminal, for cheaper housing and open spaces.

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I thank the House. I hope the House will take cognisance of what I and the honourable member for Reid have said.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-An organisation calling itself the National Alliance has announced that it will run a candidate in the seat of St George at the next election. Also an organisation called the Progressive Conservative Party recently distributed material throughout Sydney, including the St George area. Both of these organisations oppose the Government’s immigration policy and seek restrictions based on racial criteria. Therefore I want to make it quite clear to the House that I strongly support the Government’s non-discriminatory immigration policies. I am completely opposed to immigration policies based upon racial criteria. Ever since university days when I first heard a South

African bishop say that if God had meant the black man to be equal to the white man he would have made him equal, I admit to having a coloured view, for want of a better word, about the types of people who hold those opinions. I have tried to approach the matter also on a rational basis as well as feeling a great degree of contempt for that type of person.

I do not see any basis whatsoever for the view that we should treat people any differently because of their racial background or origin. Obviously we are all human beings. I am sure all honourable members of this House believe that every man is born equal. In addition to those fundamental matters of principle, there are matters of great importance to Australia’s position in the world. If we do not share our resources throughout the world, if we do not justify our privileged position in the eyes of the world, we will be called to account at the bar of world opinion both now and in the future. We must have a policy in which we share with the world our resources, in which we accept into this country those people whom we can reasonably absorb on appropriate criteria relating to matters similar to those in our present policy, but not on racial criteria or other grounds such as religion or colour that we would condemn as being inappropriate.

In this country we also have a refugee intake every year. I believe that we must show to the world that we are prepared to take reasonable and appropriate numbers of refugees and that we are prepared to open our doors to those underprivileged persons who have no home. I am proud to say that only recently in the St George electorate, through the request of one organisation, I was able to provide some slight assistance in obtaining employment for some Asian refugees. There are many worthy groups in Sydney which look after people and assist them to find employment. There are many worthy people who take refugees into their homes and provide them with the opportunity to settle into the Australian community. I respect the work of those people very much. To an extent I understand the fears of people who say that Australia’s national character will be changed out of all proportion if we have large numbers of refugees, particularly from Asian countries, a move which the Progressive Conservative Party condemns. I think the statements of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) in the past have shown that those fears are groundless. Exaggerated claims are made about birth rates and these have been seen to be groundless. There have been exaggerated claims that newcomers from Asia in particular are taking the jobs of Australian people. Equally, those claims have been shown to be groundless. There has been friction between different ethnic groups over this question and I appeal to all ethnic groups in the community, as well as Australians, to be tolerant in their approach to these matters.

My main purpose- this is a very large issue- is to inform the House in unequivocal terms that if the National Alliance, as it has indicated it will, runs a candidate in the St George electorate, or the Progressive Party mounts any activity, I will oppose such actions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I wish to talk about a matter that is of very great concern to me, to members of my party and to all thinking Australians. I refer to the recent attacks upon the Office of National Assessments. No one, it seems, has bothered to go into the details and try to analyse the motive of those who are seeking to denigrate the Office of National Assessments. Let me give the House some facts that ought to give food for thought, and invite members to ponder upon them. First of all, the Office of National Assessments was set up very much against the wishes of the intelligence services in Australia. The Australian Security Intelligence Service, the Joint Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation resented the move by the Government to comply with the Hope Commission’s recommendation for the establishment of an Office of National Assessments. They did not want their work to be assessed. They did not want anyone to know how incompetent they were and wished to be able to continue to report only to themselves, and report in a very incompetent way.

When the Office of National Assessments was set up, the first thing that ASIO and the Joint Intelligence Organisation did was to attempt to penetrate the personnel of ONA. They did in fact penetrate it. They tried to denigrate and undermine the work of ONA from within. Andrew Campbell was the ASIO plant in ONA. Campbell and ASIO are the ones responsible for setting it up.

Mr Baillieu:

– Are you sure?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am certain of it. Not only that, I want honourable members to consider some of the things that have been done to try to denigrate ONA. There is the talk about the missing document. The document was taken from ONA, and became missing as a consequence, because the ASIO plant in ONA took it. The ASIO plant did that as a first strike. When ONA became aware of the fact that it had been penetrated by ASIO, that ASIO was planting documents on some of its officers, it took the steps that ultimately led to the dismissal of Campbell and his transference to another area. Let us examine some of the statements that he has since made publicly. He has said that ONA is now undermining this Government. Nothing could be more absurd. It is demonstrably untrue because ONA was set up by this Government. It would not exist but for the support given to it by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and it is equally absurd for Campbell to say that Mr Furlonger, the head of ONA, is personally undermining the Prime Minister of this country. Nothing could be more stupid.

I turn now to the alleged secret document on commercial transactions with China. The Chinese Government has a very good relationship with this Government and a very cordial working relationship with the Department of Trade. If the Chinese Government ever wanted to obtain any information it would be made available to anybody, anybody at all. The information could be obtained freely and would be given willingly by the Department of Trade. So the assertion that has been made in that regard is patently absurd. The person about whom this person Campbell spoke is known to me. Let me say quite honestly that, as truly as I stand in my place, I did not know until someone told me today that that person, who is a very close friend of mine, was working for ONA. I deliberately refrained from contacting him today until I had made this speech because I wanted to be able to tell this House truthfully that I had not spoken to him since learning that he was in the ONA. In all the time that I have known him he has never disclosed to me that he was an officer of the ONA. I am certain that the documents which have been quoted as having been seen in his place were planted there, just as ASIO is notorious for doing similar things in other walks of life.

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

Mr CHAPMAN:
Kingston

– I have long been an advocate of the benefits of liquefied petroleum gas an alternative to motor spirit as an automotive fuel. The benefits of LPG have become even more significant with our declining oil reserves in recent times. Of course, its role in conservation in more recent times enhances the earlier benefits of LPG as an automotive fuel, which included its relative cheapness compared with motor spirits or petrol and the fact that it was a pollution free fuel. However, in January the price advantage which was enjoyed by LPG users was significantly reduced as a result of the massive price increases for LPG that were approved at that time by the Prices Justification Tribunal. These massive price increases significantly reduced the incentive for people to convert their vehicles to operate on LPG rather than on petrol because, of course, it extended considerably the time over which an owner of a motor vehicle could amortise the cost of conversion against the saving in price of LPG.

This large increase in the price of LPG became a major concern for businesses in my electorate. Honourable members would be well aware that the motor vehicle industry is of some importance to that electorate. Several businesses had invested in equipment to enable them to undertake the conversion of vehicles to LPG usage. When that price increase was announced orders from customers for conversions disappeared virtually overnight. As a result of that concern, on 19 February I asked a question of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, as to the Government’s intentions in relation to the use of LPG as an alternative automotive fuel. I asked whether the recent price increases still allowed sufficient incentive for people to convert their motor vehicles and whether the Government was still keen to encourage that conversion. I also took up the matter directly with Senator Carrick, the Minister for National Development and Energy, both in writing and in personal discussion with him.

A number of my colleagues were also concerned about this issue, although many of them were concerned with the effect on the domestic usage of LPG rather than on automotive use. Therefore, I was very pleased to hear on 8 April that Senator Carrick, had announced that the price of LPG, both propane and butane, would be reduced to a common maximum price of $205 per tonne. The purpose of this announcement, of course, was to encourage the local use of LPG as a means of reducing our dependence on imported oil, especially in those areas where LPG had a premium value, such as for automotive use. In that statement the Minister announced that the Government expected that producers of LPG would supply the domestic market, rather than the export market, as a first priority and that he had received assurances to that effect from the Bass Strait producers.

I am glad that the Government now considers that the highest priority usage for LPG is as a motor vehicle fuel, particularly for fleet vehicles in capital cities. This very welcome announcement of a maximum price of $205 per tonne for LPG means that for automotive use the maximum price at the pump in capital cities is estimated to fall to about 16.5c per litre compared with the current price of about 18.9c per litre. That compares very favourably with the common retail price for petrol of 33c per litre. The price of LPG for automotive use is now about half the price of petrol. Of course, that differential takes into account the existing differential costs and relativities between producers’ and retailers’ margins for petrol and LPG respectively. The Government has also linked the future movement in the wholesale price of LPG to the same percentage movements for crude oil.

I congratulate the Government for taking the initiative in reducing the price of LPG. I now urge the Government to pursue the suggestion which I made to the Deputy Prime Minister in my question of 19 February and engage in a major promotional exercise as to the benefits of LPG so that more widespread use of LPG is encouraged.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! It being 1 1 o’clock, the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2. 1 5 p.m. tomorrow.

page 1757

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr John McLeay to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain Acts in connection with the enactment of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

Mr John McLeay to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

Mr Burns to move; That

page 1757

PAPERS

The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 15 April 1980, pursuant to statute:

Commonwealth Banks Act- Appointment certificateR. C. Last.

Customs Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980, Nos. 61,71,72, 76.

Defence Act- Determinations- 1 980-

No. 14- Hot Conditions Allowance.

No.15- Trainee Leader’s Allowance.

Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force ActRegulationsStatutory Rules 1980, No. 73.

Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for airport purposes- Brisbane, Qld.

Overseas Telecommunications Act- RegulationStatutory Rules 1 980, No. 74.

Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1980. No. 75.

Public Service Arbitration Act- Public Service Arbitrator- Determinations accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law- 1 980-

No. 78- Australian Public Service Artisans’ Association.

No. 79- Australian Workers’ Union and others.T

No. 80- Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).

No. 81- Federal Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia.

No. 82- Commonwealth Foremen’s Association of Australia (Australian Public Service) and others.

States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act- Amendment of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, dated 31 March 1980.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1758

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

F111 Aircraft (Question No. 5070)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 3 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What was the final delivery price paid for the purchase of the F111 aircraft?
  2. What was the first announced estimated price?
  3. What was the cost of Australian requested modifications prior to delivery?
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The final cost of the F111C aircraft acquisition program is estimated at $260.963 million. Expenditure of $260.349 million had been brought to account to 31 December 1979; and most of the balance of $614,000 is planned to be spent in completing the development of an Aircraft Fatigue Monitoring Program, due for completion later this year. A small amount is outstanding on support equipment presently on order.

Work on the definition and development of the monitoring program, which is a normal part of the support of RAAF aircraft, is necessarily complex and time consuming. The program is being developed in conjunction with Australian industry.

  1. In November 1963, the then Minister for Defence announced that the purchase of 24 F111 aircraft would cost approximately £A56m($A1 12m).

This estimate covered the average unit cost of development and production based on the then estimated total production.

It also included one year’s initial spares, spare engines, associated handling equipment, training aids and the initial and operational training of crews in the United States of America.

It will be appreciated that this original estimate was made some fourteen months before the first research aircraft flew and at a stage when there was very little information on which to base costs. (3 )$A 16.350m.

Parliamentary Visits to Australian Territories (Question No. 5352)

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Which members of the Australian Parliament have visited the Australian Territories of (a) Cocos (Keeling) Islands, (b) Christmas Island and (c) Norfolk Island since January 1975.
  2. What provision is made for members of the Australian Parliament to visit these Australian Territories.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. (a) Senator the Hon. D. McClelland; Senator C. G. Primmer; Senator A. J. Drury; Senator G. D. Mcintosh; Senator C..R. Maunsell; Senator J. P. Sim; Senator the Rt. Hon. R. G. Withers; The Hon. R. J. Ellicott, Q.C., M.P.: The

Hon. M. J. R. MacKellar, M.P.; The Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony, M.P.

  1. Senator the Hon. D. McClelland; Senator the Rt Hon. R. G. Withers; Senator P. A. Walsh; The Hon. R. J. Ellicott, Q.C., M.P.; Mr U. E. Innes, M.P.

  2. The Hon. Gordon M. Bryant, E.D., M.P.; Senator the Hon. J. L. Cavanagh; Senator the Rt. Hon. R. G. Withers; The Hon. R. J. Ellicott, Q.C., M.P.; Mr J. W. Haslem, M.P.; Senator the Hon. Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, D.B.E.; Mr P. F. Johnson, M.P.; Mr I. B. C. Wilson, M.P.; Mr U. E. Innes, M.P.; Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke, K.C.M.G.; The Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden, K.C.M.G., Q.C., M.P.; Senator the Hon. J. L. Carrick; The Hon. J. E. McLeay, M.P.

    1. I am informed that no special provision exists for members of Parliament to travel to these Australian Territories. They may, however, use for this purpose the credit available to them for overseas travel in accordance with Clauses 10.1 to 10.9 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 10 of 1979,

Defence Force: Service in Indo-China (Question No. 5362)

Mr Holding:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

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

  1. How many Australian (a) officers and (b) noncommissioned ranks served at any time between 1960 and 1 972 in (i) Vietnam (ii) Laos and (iii) Cambodia.
  2. How many of these (a) officers and (b) noncommissioned ranks are currently serving in Australia’s defence forces.
  3. Have any senior service personnel expressed concern within the past year over the level of morale within the defence forces as a result of physical and psychological problems (allegedly caused by exposure to chemical and biological warfare agents while on active service in Vietnam) now being experienced by servicemen, ex-servicemen and their families.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

Available Defence Force records show the following numbers as having served in the areas in question.

Navy: Vietnam-Officers 303, Other ranks 3,007. Laos- Nil. Cambodia- Nil.

Army: Vietnam-Total of 42,437 (Ranks are not distinguished in the records). Laos-Officers 6, Other ranks 6 (Attache duties).Cambodia- Officers 6, Other ranks 6 (Attache duties).

Air Force: Vietnam-Officers 727, Other ranks 3,716. Laos- Nil. Cambodia- Nil.

Without a manual search of individual personal records only the Air Force can provide details of the number of Vietnam veterans still on full-time service. Air Force figures are: Officers 492, Other ranks 1,373.

No senior Service personnel have expressed concern that morale within the Services has been affected by any medical problems that may have their origins in the use of chemical or biological agents in Vietnam.

Army Reserve (Question No. 5464)

Mr Scholes:

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

  1. Did the Prime Minister in his statement of 19 February 1980 commit the Government to raising an extra 8,000 men for the Army Reserve (Hansard, page 25).
  2. If so, does this mean an average increase of 1,600 men per annum in each year of the program period.
  3. What means above and beyond the current Reserve recruiting campaign are proposed to achieve this increase.
  4. Did his Department conduct any study during 1979 on the feasibility of raising the necessary number of men for the Reserve; if so, did any study include an assumption for compulsory enlistment of men in the Reserve.
  5. Is he able to state how the Government proposes to raise the additional men for the Reserve in the event that voluntary enlistments do not yield the required numbers.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Prime Minister stated that the manpower of the Army Reserve will be increased by about 8,000 over the next five years from 1 July 1980.
  2. Yes.
  3. Additional advertising funds are being considered in the program.
  4. No specific study was conducted during 1979 but the matter is under constant review; no consideration has been given to compulsory enlistment during that review.
  5. It is anticipated that voluntary enlistment will be sufficient to yield the required numbers.

Art Exhibitions (Question No. 5514)

Mr Humphreys:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Will the exhibition Pompeii AD 79, referred to in his press release of 1 1 January 1980, visit Brisbane; if not, why not.
  2. Did other exhibitions, such as the Chinese and Tutankhamen exhibitions, visit Brisbane: if not, why not.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. 1 have been advised that the Italian authorities responsible for the exhibition have restricted the number of venues to three. The Australian Gallery Directors Council, the organisation touring the exhibition and therefore carrying the entrepreneurial risk, has decided that the exhibition will be shown in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide.
  2. No, in both cases. I have been advised that in agreeing to the Chinese Antiquities exhibition visiting Australia, the Chinese Government stipulated that it should only be shown in two centres. As a result it was decided to show the exhibition in Sydney and Melbourne, being the country’s two largest population centres. The Tutankhamen exhibition has not been shown in Australia.

Defence Exercise: Helicopters (Question No. 5527)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

Was a defence exercise using yellow painted helicopters recently held at Wodonga, Victoria; if so, was this training for desert warfare.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

No. There are no yellow painted helicopters in the Australian Defence Force.

Army Reserve (Question No. 5529)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Millar report on Citizen Military Forces recommend integration of the army reserve with regular forces.
  2. What is the role of the 42nd Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment, in the event of hostilities, for example in the Shoalwater Bay to Keppel Bay region of Queensland.
  3. Are there any impediments to the use of the Battalion; if so how long would it take to correct them.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. The Millar Committee concluded, in part, ‘that any Reserve component must be prepared for total integration with the rest of the Army in the event of call-up for full time duty, and that in peace both Regular and Reserve components should be treated and act as part of a single force. ‘
  2. The role of 42nd Battalion, the Royal Queensland Regiment would be the same as any other Infantry element of the Army. The Battalion would not necessarily be employed in one specific area. In all but the most unusual circumstances it would be part of a larger force such as a Task Force or Division, and be deployed to counter the perceived threat.
  3. There would be no impediment to the use of the 42nd Battalion, Royal Queensland Regiment for operations provided that the necessary legislation of the Defence Act relating to the call out of the Army Reserve had been enacted. Time would be needed to man and equip the unit to full war establishment levels if this level had not been achieved and then to conduct collective training of the unit appropriate to its particular task in the field.

Defence Force: Applications for Entry (Question No. 5544)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 February 1980:

  1. How many (a) males and (b) females applied for entry into the (i) Royal Australian Navy, (ii) Royal Australian Air Force and (iii) Australian Regular Army in (A) 1977,(B) 1978and(C) 1979.
  2. For each category (a) how many applicants were accepted and (b) what were the major reasons for rejection of applicants.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The numbers of applications for entry into each of the Services, and the numbers of enlistments, are shown in the table below.

Major reasons for rejection of applicants were:

Failure to report for testing

Medically unfit

HMAS ‘Melbourne’ (Question No. 5550)

Mr James:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Was HMAS Melbourne fitted with new weapons prior to leaving Australia Tor the annual RIMPAC exercise; if so, (a) how many and (b) what type of weapons were fitted.
  2. Will the Melbourne soon be deployed in the Indian Ocean to bolster the United States of America fleet.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. HMAS Melbourne and other units will deploy into the Indian Ocean in the second half of 1980. This deployment will be essentially an independent, national effort.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Unemployment Benefit Forms (Question No. 5579)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 5 March 1980 :

  1. 1 ) Is it the responsibility of officers of his Department to check unemployment benefit recipients’ job efforts listed on the back of Commonwealth Employment Service forms 19-B.
  2. Are applicants for unemployment benefits required to list on these forms, in their own handwriting, efforts they have made to obtain employment; if so, must those statements be signed by the applicant.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is the responsibility of officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service, in relation to the form 19-B, to check that all questions are answered. Any omissions are drawn to the attention of the claimant/recipient and should he decline to answer any question this in turn is drawn to the attention of Department of Social Security, which has responsibility for the administration of unemployment benefits.
  2. Yes.

Military District Bands (Question No. 5629)

Mr Dawkins:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What has been the average establishment of the Fifth Military District Band based in Perth during each of the last 3 years.
  2. What is the current establishment strength of the military district bands in other capital cities.
  3. What is the peacetime establishment level of these bands.
  4. How is this level determined.
  5. How many performances were undertaken by each of the district military bands in each of the last 3 years.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The average posted strength has been 43 all ranks against an authorised peacetime establishment of 34 all ranks.
  2. The current posted strengths are: 1st Military District Band, Brisbane- 45, 2nd Military District Band, Sydney- 48, 3rd Military District Band, Melbourne- 46, 4th Military District Band, Adelaide- 34. There is no Regular Army Band in 6th Military District (Tasmania).
  3. 1st Military District Band-50, 2nd Military District Band-50, 3rd Military District Band- 50, 4th Military District Band- 34.

  4. Establishment levels are determined after consideration of the following:

    1. Military population, military commitment and level of local and national ceremonial activity;
    2. b) Civilian population and commitment;
    3. Manpower available within the authorised manpower ceiling; and
    4. The technical balance and adequate musical instrumentation of each band.

(5)-

Army Reserve (Question No. 5652)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the present strength of the Army Reserve.
  2. How many of , these personnel are considered effectives.
  3. What training, in outline, is provided to members of the Army Reserve in their (a) first and (b) subsequent years.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 22,803.
  2. 21,718.
  3. 3 ) In their first year in the Army Reserve members undertake recruit and initial employment training. They may also attend an annual camp and undergo home training. In subsequent years apart from annual camp and home training, members may undertake specialist/individual training courses and promotion courses.

High Court Building (Question No. 4017)

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 28 May 1979:

  1. Does the Civil Works Program 1974-75, under the heading ‘National Capital Development Commission, Proposed New Works’ contain the entry ‘Parkes- Erection of High Court Building-estimated amount required $10,900,000’ and the Civil Works Program 1978-79, under the heading ‘National Capital Development Commission, Works in Progress’ contain the entry ‘Parkes- Erection of High Court Building-estimated cost $34,320,043 ‘.
  2. If so, what changes in design have taken place since the initial estimated cost of $ 10,900,000.
  3. Who sought these changes and what are the reasons for them.
  4. Who authorised the changes.
  5. What is the current estimated cost of the High Court building.
  6. What is the estimated cost of the fittings and furniture for the building.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

I am informed by the National Capital Development Commission:

1 ) Yes. The sum of $10,900,000 included in the 1974-75 Civil Works Program was the estimated cost of the building at developed sketch plan stage.

The contract for construction of the building was let to PDC Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd in April 1975. The authorised cost at the commencement of construction was $18,540,817.

The increase in cost between the 1974-75 estimate and the commencement cost resulted from inflation, inclusion of a forecourt structure, ramp and bridge extension, and the refinement of cost estimates during a period of roughly two years as the detailed design of the structure and the internal finishes was resolved. (2, 3 and 4) To answer the various parts of the question it is necessary to trace the early history of this project and to put into context the process by which construction of the building was carried out concurrently with the development of the details of the design.

On 29 February 1968 the Gorton Government approved in principle the transfer to Canberra of the principal Seat of the High Court and agreed that Stage 1 of a prestige building on the proposed lakeside site should be developed. On 29 March 1972 the McMahon Government approved the siting of the High Court on the North-East corner of the Parliamentary Triangle and approved the conduct of a two-stage architectural competition. The competition commenced in July 1972. In July 1973 the design of Mr Christopher Kringas of Edwards, Madigan, Torzillo and Briggs was selected as the competition winner.

In October 1973 the Whitlam Government gave approval to the NCDC to enter into an agreement with the winning architects to proceed with the design and documentation of the building.

Most architectural competitions are directed primarily at selecting the designer rather than the design and the prescription of the requirements for the High Court at the time of the competition comprised in the main a statement of the functions of the High Court with little information about the detailed requirements of the user. It had always been understood that when the designer was selected considerable time would have to be devoted to the development of the design through a close working association between the NCDC, the architects and the user. This process commenced early in 1974.

Much work was carried out during 1974 and while many aspects of the design were considered, detailed investigation of alternatives to achieve the best possible design still remained to be completed when the Whitlam Government indicated its desire to commence construction at the earliest possible time. To meet this request the NCDC and the architects produced a provisional set of contract documents by October 1974 as the basis for invitation and acceptance of a tender. These documents in fact represented the extent to which the design had been developed by July 1 974.

The documents included provisional amounts for many elements of the building for which design details were not at that time available. In the event most of these provisional items proved to be inadequate to achieve the necessary functional and architectural requirements of the project.

Tenders for construction of the High Court building were invited on 3 1 October 1974. The pre-tender estimate of cost was $16.2m. Tenders closed in December 1974 and following negotiations with the lowest tenderer, PDC Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd, the contract was let in April 1 975 for $ 18.4m. Construction commenced in the following month.

Since the contract was let in April 1975 the cost has increased annually as follows:

The building cost index as reflected in the rise and fall clauses of the contract have varied as follows:

The major factor in the increase in the cost of the building has been the application of the rise and fall formula in the Contract; this is, a direct reflection of the inflation of building materials and labour costs in the economy at large.

The question asks for details of changes in design, the reasons for such changes, who sought them and who authorised them. Because of the process described above the reference to ‘changes’ in design is not entirely appropriate. In most cases it would be more accurate to speak about the resolution of design details once specific user requirements were specified. Decisions on these matters were arrived at following a consistent process of consultation between the NCDC. the architect and the user, the user in this case being the Attorney-General’s Department and the Chief Justice representing the Court. The final authorisation to implement design decisions is made by the NCDC as the body responsible for the design and construction, and for the control of expenditure. As will be seen below many of the changes had in substance been identified by the time the Contract was let in April 1975 but were not included in estimates of costs until specific details and costs had been worked out. The more significant examples of design categories, which were finalised in the consultative process referred to, may be summarised under the headings which follow:-

Building Security

Following established practice with public buildings the advice of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation was sought on all aspects of security. ASIO expressed concern about the risk of an attack on a judge or other person by rifle fire from outside the building, and in December 1974 recommended measures to eliminate security risks, including the installation of bullet-resistant glass in some parts of the building together with surveillance equipment etc. The user accepted this recommendation in February 1975. Installation of the glass required redesign of pan of the building structure and fenestration. The estimated cost of the changes to the building was $ 1.430m.

Office Partitioning

The original design envisaged open plan office arrangements to meet the functional requirements of the High Court staff; consequently minimum provision was made in the contract documents for office partitioning. However, as the functional requirements became more clearly understood it was evident that open plan systems were not appropriate for the functions required and the design was adjusted to include partitioning. This partitioning was requested by the user in December 1 974. The court reporting facilities were moved to the upper levels because these could not function efficiently unless they were given sound proof offices.

The cost of partitioning the office areas, including adjustments to electrical and mechanical fittings was $660,000.

Acoustics

The operations of courts require fine acoustic tolerances. In the design process the exact means of achieving the required tolerances cannot be determined by acoustic engineers until the architectural design is at an advanced stage. In the original documents certain provisions had been made in the knowledge of the broad acoustic requirements but financial provision proved to be insufficient. To achieve the design reverberation times and reduce acoustic aberration to a minimum, finishes in the courts and other parts of the building were modified to extend sound absorbent finishes to cover greater areas than originally envisaged. This was achieved through the use of timber panelling or plaster. Ceilings have also been treated with acoustic panels. Ducting and service cores have been soundproofed to a very high standard. The basic acoustic report on which these modifications were based was received in March 1975.

The estimated cost of acoustic treatment is $750,000.

Special Doors

As part of its total review of the security aspects of the building, ASIO in December 1974 recommended special doors which required redesign of frames. These requirements had not been contemplated in the original documents and subsequently led to additional costs of $ 1 50,000.

Forecourt

The forecourt represents a significant addition to the contract which cannot be regarded as a design change or a design refinement. The forecourt was always proposed as a formal civic space as part of the environs of the Court and to complement similar surrounds to the National Gallery. The work was added to the High Court Contract by NCDC as a result of a recommendation by the Architect on the coordination of construction work. The decision to add this forecourt to the High Court Contract was made in July 1974. As part of this work a document storage facility was incorporated into the forecourt structure. The estimated cost of this additional work by NCDC and conversion of underground space to storage was $ 1 . 4m.

  1. As at February 1980, the estimated final cost of the High Court is $49. lm. This sum is made up as follows:-

The estimate of final cost is provisional only and the actual final cost could be less.

  1. The estimated cost of new fittings and furniture is $2.031m.

Medical Services (Question No. 4716)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) What proportion of medical services in Australia was provided by (a) general practitioners on a (i) fee for service and (ii) salaried or sessional basis and ( b) specialists on a (i) fee for service, (ii) salaried or sessional and (iii) honorary basis, in each year since 1970.
  2. What was the average number of services provided per head of population by (a) general practitioners, (b) specialists, excluding pathologists and radiologists, (c) pathologists and (d ) radiologists, in each year since 1 970.
  3. How many specialist medical referrals were made by (a) general practitioners and (b) specialist practitioners in the same period.
  4. How many (a) general practitioners and (b) specialist practitioners were practising medicine in Australia in each year since 1970.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The information requested is not available, except for the proportion and average number of services per head of population for services on which medical benefits were paid in respect of the charges incurred by patients. Estimates on a full year basis derived from medical benefits claims processed during the March quarter 1979 are:

practitioner was an optometrist or a medical practitioner who was or was not recognised as a specialist or a consultant physician for the purposes of the Health Insurance Act.

  1. Data on the size and composition of the medical workforce have not been published by officialgovernmentagencies (e.g. Medical Registrationand authorities) until recent years.

The only source of which I am aware which provides the data over the period sought by the honourable member is the commercial mailing agency, Permail. Data from that source are set out below. Information gained from recent official surveys of medical registers suggests that the Permail data are a reasonable reflection of the order of magnitude of the number and type of doctors in the Australian medical workforce.

Public Housing Rentals (Question No. 4966)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

What were the average rents charged for public dwellings in each (a) State, (b) Territory and (c) capital city during (i) 1973-74, (ii) 1974-75, (iii) 1975-76, (iv) 1976-77, (v) 1977-78 and (vi) 1978-79.

Mr Groom:
LP

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

The following information has been provided by the respective state housing authorities, the Northern Territory Housing Commission and the Department of the Capital Territory. The rents referred to below are before rental rebates, if any, are provided.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 15 April 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800415_reps_31_hor118/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant