House of Representatives
2 June 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2393

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Whaling

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

That due to (he new information on whale communication, behaviour and intelligence, and to the depleted state of most of the great whale stocks and the uncertainty associated with whale population estimates, that commercial whaling is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of Australians. It is urged that immediate steps be taken to end this activity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie, Mr Hodges and Mr Macphee.

Petitions received.

Abortions

To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth humbly showeth:

That the undersigned are deeply concerned.

That abortion is the destruction of innocent human life.

That on 10 May 1973, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly rejected the Medical Practices Clarification Bill, which sought to legalise abortion on demand in the Territories controlled by the Federal Government.

That the Legislative Assembly in Canberra should consult Parliament again before discussing and debating the opening and operations of Population Services International and Preterm Foundation in Canberra.

That the situation regarding abortions in the Australian Capital Territory is the same as that in New South Wales where the statute prohibits abortion but allows a defence.

That the situation in the Australian Capital Territory has a great impact on situations in the states.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray.

That the Federal Government will act immediately to prevent the establishment and/or operation of Population Services International and Preterm Foundation, and other private clinics, in the Australian Capital Territory.

That taxpayers’ money may not be used, through Medibank, to finance abortions.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Carige.

Petitions received.

Royal Commission on Petroleum

The petition of certain members of the Service Station Association of New South Wales Ltd, and certain members of the motoring public of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That the Federal Government give every consideration to implementing the findings of the Royal Commission on Petroleum.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will take action to ensure that the needs of the motoring public and the retail petroleum industry are given every consideration.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Dr Klugman.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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 delays between announcements of each quarterly movement in the consumer price index and their application as a percentage increase in age and invalid pensions is excessive, unnecessary, discriminatory and a cause of economic distress to pensioners. . That proposals to amend the consumer price index by eliminating particular items from the index could adversely affect the value of future increases in age and invalid pensions and thus be a cause of additional economic hardship to pensioners.

The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to-

  1. . Require each quarterly percentage increase in the consumer price index to be applied to age and invalid and similar pensions as from the pension pay day nearest following the date of announcement of the CPI movement.
  2. Give an open assurance to all aged and invalid pensioners that any revision of the items comprising the consumer price index will in no way result in reductions in the value of any future entitlements to pensioners.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Klugman and Mr Willis.

Petitions received.

Pensions

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

Whereas award wages were increased from 24 May 1977 to allow for increases in the consumer price index during the quarter commencing in January this year and are normally increased every quarter to allow for increases in the consumer price index in the preceding quarter; and

Whereas pensions were increased from 12 May 1977 to allow for increases in the consumer price index during the two quarters commencing in October last year and are normally increased every six months to allow for increases in the consumer price index in the preceding two quarters; and

Whereas the then Minister for Social Security said in a press statement on 8 December1975 that the Government would ‘bring in legislation which will allow increases in pensions to be made instantly and automatically as soon as the new index is announced ‘;

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that an assurance will be given that this promise will be promptly fulfilled and that pensions like award wages will be increased every quarter to compensate for increases in the consumer price index in the preceding quarter.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wallis and Mr E. G. Whitlam.

Petitions received.

Australian Roads-Aged Persons Homes-Television Services

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.
  3. That Recherche Homes for the Aged Inc. in Esperance, Western Australia, has worked for 17 years foraged persons homes in Esperance, has raised $197,000 from local sources in expectation of Government subsidies, has erected six units without subsidy and has been told it cannot expect any Government assistance before at least 1979-80.
  4. That television is not extended to remoter areas unless the whole cost is borne by the local community, despite the contribution to national wealth of the mining and agricultural areas, the taxation paid from these, and the need to improve the quality of life in the harsh conditions of isolation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives/Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long term policy should be to provide50 per cent of ail funding for Australia’ s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5,903m of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1 980-8 1 , of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads.

That funds be distributed under the Aged Persons Homes Act in a more equitable manner so that some worthy groups are not left devoid of subsidy.

That a program of extension of television services to areas of primary production presently classified as ‘remote’, be progressively implemented. byMrBungey.

Petition received.

Australian Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 percent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government’s long-term policy should be to provide 50 per cent of all funding for Australia ‘s roads.

That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5,903m of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads. by Mr Bungey.

Petition received.

Government 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 the Australian nation was founded on the belief that God Almighty is the supreme ruler of the universe and that therefore all people are duty bound to honour Him in their every action.

That the Parliament acknowledges this principle each day of its sitting by the reading of public prayers.

At the same time the nation and many of its leaders seem to seek self gratification as their ultimate goal; leading to grave dissatisfaction amongst many and anarchy in some, which may ultimately lead to the establishment of a dictatorship of either the left or the right.

That many Christians are concerned about the deterioration in moral standards, private as well as public as is instanced by public lawlessness and in the private sphere disobedience to higher authorities and a lowering of moral attitudes.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Parliament to:

Give honour to Almighty God and to acknowledge their high calling; civil authority being in the sight of God, not only sacred and lawful but by far the most honourable of all stations in life. Psalm 82.

To resist all that leads to a belief that material enrichment is the ultimate in personal well-being but rather to call upon the nation to fear God and keep His commandments: for that is the whole duty of man. Ecclesiasies 12, 13 and 14.

To apply the Universal law of God; the ten commandments to all its legislative actions, thus providing a sound basis on which to build a harmonious relationship between all sections of the community.

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

Petition received.

Broadcasting and Television Programs

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 because television and radio:

  1. . affect our social and moral environment,
  2. are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and
  3. present too much explicit violence and sex.

They therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national and commercial sectors.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate:

  1. for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public,
  2. against self-regulation by the broadcasting and television industry,
  3. for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and
  4. for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Edwards.

Petition received.

Australia Council: Community Arts Program

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

That we are deeply concerned at the threats posed by administrative changes to the funding of the Community Arts Program within the Australia Council and to the continuation of effective development of Community Arts throughout Australia.

Your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House will at this time take steps to postpone any change to the present structure until adequate consultation has taken place between the Commonwealth Government and constituent groups involved in Community Arts.

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

Petition received.

Rhodesia

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

That the Charter or the United Nations clearly precludes it from interference in the domestic affairs of a country or from obstructing the free transmission of news and information between individuals and between nations,

That the United Nations, in apparent illegality, has imposed many restrictions and sanctions upon Rhodesia which has been remarkably free from the bloodshed and turmoil of Northern and Central African lands, even to the extent now of actively encouraging armed conflict against the legally elected Government of Rhodesia,

Lord Graham, as Minister of External Affairs and Defense has said ‘International Communism is our enemy, all this talk of political advancement and majority rule is no more than a smokescreen in the early skirmishes of an assault upon the whole of Africa … It is even difficult to see this enemy because it is not merely attacking us, but on a broad front is attacking the whole world order, its standards, its law and order, its moralities, its churches, its patriotisms, its philosophies and even much of its learning . . . ‘

That Communist Chinese infiltration in much of Africa over many years, and Cuban Communist troops reported to number 25,000 are dominating nearby Angola and possess modern missiles etc.

It is urgent that Mozambique, now under Communist domination and which has a common border with Rhodesia, does not receive any further aid from the Commonwealth Government of Australia, which has benefited mainly the terrorist guerilla movements that are responsible for the deaths of many Rhodesian people,

It is urgent for the Australian people to determine for themselves the actual facts of the Rhodesian struggles,

It is urgent that the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled, will observe common justice and proper humanity by inviting only authorised representatives of the present Government of Rhodesia, to do what they have been deprived to do previously, present their case fully and publicly so that this can be examined and tested, without interference, and so that the eventual impact on Australia’s own security and defense alliances can be gauged with better accuracy,

Your petitioners request urgent action to be taken immediately.

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

Petition received.

Mr Ignazio Salemi

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Austraia do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will permit Mr Ignazio Salemi to remain in Australia as a resident.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

  1. That whereas an amnesty was announced for all illegal migrants and that whereas Mr Ignazio Salemi, an appplicant for amnesty, has been denied amnesty.
  2. That Mr Salemi fulfills all the publicly announced criteria for amnesty.
  3. That a decision of six judges of the high Court of Australia recognises that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs may exercise a discretion to allow Ignasio Salemi to remain in Australia.
  4. That, although denying Salemi ‘s appeal, all six judges of the High Court agreed that he had been unfairly treated.

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

Petition received.

Australian Roads

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

  1. Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate funding.
  2. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 percent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

That the Commonwealth Government should totally finance national highways and half the cost of constructing and maintaining all other public roads.

That since current road funding arrangements have seen a deterioration in road assets, this backlog in construction and maintenance needs to be reduced by the Commonwealth Government undertaking to make a larger financial contribution.

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

Petition received.

Governor-General

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 although we accept the verdict of the Australian people in the 1975 election, we do not accept the right of a Governor-General to dismiss a Prime Minister who maintains the confidence of the House of Representatives.

We believe that the continued presence of Sir John Kerr as Governor-General is a cause of division among the Australian people.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will call on Sir John Kerr to resign as Australian Governor-General.

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

Petition received.

Public Libraries

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

That the public library services in New South Wales are inadequate both in quality and quantity and that the burden of provision is placed too heavily upon local government.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries as a matter of urgency.

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

Petition received.

Industrial Legislation

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 strong opposition and deep concern at the attempt of the Government to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act not be amended.

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

Petition received.

Private Hospital and Nursing Home Subsidies

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

  1. 1 ) We, the undersigned, urge the Federal Government not to withdraw the private hospital and nursing home subsidies that are currently contributing $ 16.00 a day and up to $ 1 7.65 a day towards hospitalisation costs.
  2. As we are already paying for the subsidies through our taxes, we consider it an imposition for us to be obliged to meet these costs through higher health fund contributions. by Mr Scholes.

Petition received.

page 2396

FRASER GOVERNMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr E G WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

That this House has no confidence in the Fraser Government because of:

Its creation of the highest unemployment since the Great Depression;

Its callous disregard for the victims of its economic policies including the unemployed and their families;

Its contempt for the law and defiance of the High Court in contriving to withhold unemployment benefits from eligible persons; and

The inability of the Treasurer to grasp and adequately respond to the grave social and economic consequences of his excessively severe economic measures.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Anthony) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the matter being dealt with forthwith.

Want of Confidence Motion

Mr E G WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Australian governments since the war have maintained an unbroken and unqualified commitment to the goal of full employment. This was more than an economic policy; it was a commitment to 2 great and enduring ideals- the ideal of individual security and the ideal of growing national prosperity and development. At the heart of that policy was a belief by successive governments, whatever their political affiliation, in the right of all Australians to a decent job and a decent standard of living. The architects of that policy- the wartime and post-war Federal Labor governments- enshrined full employment as a fundamental and continuing objective for governments. Even in periods of recession and economic difficulty- indeed, especially in such times- successive governments saw their first priority and overriding duty as the preservation of the livelihoods of the Australian people.

The Fraser Government has abandoned that commitment. It is the first government in Australia’s post-war history to do so. It has jettisoned an objective of all national governments in all modern industrial societies. Nowhere in the speeches or utterances of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) or his followers is there a firm and unqualified pledge to maintain full employment. Far from seeking to restore full employment, the Fraser Government’s policies are designed to put people out of work. After 1 8 months of the Fraser Government, 18 months of bungling and mismanagement, 18 months of lies, deceptions and broken promises, it has come to this: Australia has the highest unemployment since the Great Depression. And month by month, week by week, day by day, the underlying crisis is deepening.

The scale of this social and human disaster- a disaster almost unprecedented in Australian terms and unlike anything the vast majority of our people have experienced- can be measured by the deteriorating unemployment statistics under the Fraser Government. Eleven months have passed of the first full financial year since the Fraser Government came to power. The results are clear. Unemployment under this Government has increased by 3 1 per cent. It is much worse today than it was a year ago. In his Budget Speech last August the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) stated:

There will be a gradual reduction in unemployment, although little of this will be experienced in the course of this calendar year.

That was the Treasurer’s promise, his considered and expert judgment in his Budget Speech. Like all the Government’s promises on the economy, his statement fell far short of a commitment to full employment in principle: Nevertheless it was a promise. And that promise has been broken. Statement No. 2 attached to the Treasurer’s Budget Speech predicted a 2 per cent growth in the work force and a growth in employment ‘of the order of one to 2 per cent for the year as a whole’. That was an official admission that unemployment would get worse- and indeed it has. There has been no ‘gradual reduction in unemployment’, as the Treasurer said in his Budget Speech; there has been a rapid increase, and the underlying level is still increasing.

By every possible means, by every strategem and deception, the Government has sought to confuse the figures and to conceal the havoc it has wrought. It has abolished the seasonally adjusted statistics; it has stood over the Commonwealth Employment Service to get its figures down to ‘rock bottom’; it has scrapped whole categories of people, including many Aboriginals, from the lists of unemployed; it has used every means of persuasion or coercion to discourage the unemployed from registering for benefits; it is breaking the law, it is defying the High Court, by refusing benefits to people who have challenged its heartless and vindictive policies. Yet the figures still speak for themselves. They condemn the Treasurer; they condemn the Government. At the end of January this year the number of people unemployed was 354 589- that is 5.8 per cent. In raw terms, unemployment between the end of October 1 975 and the end of last January rose by 107 000-43 percent- under the Treasurer’s administration.

There has been no significant decline in the first months of this year. Instead of the usual improvement in the months after Christmas, the situation is virtually unchanged. At the end of February, the percentage of the work force unemployed was 5.7; at the end of February last year it had been 5 per cent. At the end of March this year it was 5.4 per cent; a year before it had been 4.3 per cent. At the end of April this year it was 5.2 per cent; at the end of April last year it had been 4.4 per cent. In every month, therefore, the figures have deteriorated. The peaks normally evident when school leavers are seeking work are now a permanent plateau. They are evidence of a chronic and continuing malaise. The Fraser Government has ensured that unemployment is no longer a problem but a way of life in Australia- a growing cancer in the nation’s economy.

The Treasurer cannot wriggle away from the responsibility for our national crisis by blaming the Labor Government. That excuse will not wash; the people are sick of it. Everyone knows that unemployment in Australia increased between 1972 and 1975 when the world was gripped by recession. But it increased in that time in every major western country. Between the end of 1972 and the end of 1975 in every Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country unemployment had increased. It increased between those dates in Germany, in Britain, in the United States of America, in New Zealand, in Canada and in Japan. It certainly increased in Australia. But it increased in every OECD country in those years. No one in those countries, no one aware of the trends in neighbouring countries, saw their problem as unique or exceptional. It may be that, in Australia, people thought this was singular to Australia. But if one was in the United States one knew the same problem occurred in Canada under a different sort of administration. If one was in France, one knew it occurred in Germany under a different sort of administration. Everyone in the OECD countries saw the unemployment position deteriorating from the end of 1972 to the end of 1975.

The great difference, however, between Australia and the other OECD countries, and the great indictment of the Treasurer and the Fraser Government is this: Unemployment under this Government has got steadily worse while in other western countries it has got steadily better. The OECD statistics for unemployment between March 1976 and March 1977 show that Australia’s unemployment record under this Government was worse than that of any other country save Canada. In most western countries the level of unemployment has fallen in the past year. In Australia it has risen. In the United States it fell from 8. 1 per cent to 7.9 per cent; in New Zealand from 5.2 per cent to 4.6 per cent; in Germany from 5.2 per cent to 4.8 per cent; in Japan from 2.4 per cent to 2.2 per cent. In Australia alone it has increased- from 4.6 per cent to 5.4 per cent. It has increased in Australia because the Fraser Government, alone among the nations of the industrialised world, is cutting back on national or Federal expenditure and public sector programs. Unemployment, falling in the early months of last year under the impact of the Hayden Budget, promptly took off again when the Treasurer began his disastrous reductions in Federal works programs and his disastrous reductions in federal outlays to the States and local government.

Let it never be forgotten that Labor’s policies were reducing unemployment from the high levels of the international recession. Under the impact of the Hayden Budget unemployment was declining towards the end of 1975 and in the first months of 1976. In February last year, as a result of Labor’s policies, it fell by 40 200. The Government had every opportunity to pursue and strengthen that recovery. After the March figures were published this year the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) admitted:

No one can get any joy from the end-of-March unemployment figures which are less favourable than this time last year.

Of the April figures he said:

There was a further weakening of the labour market last month.

How many more weakenings are there going to be? The Minister has admitted that the figures have worsened under the Fraser Government, that the Treasurer’s policies have failed, that the Budget last August was misconceived and was wholly inadequate as a strategy to deal with recession. It was a document designed to put people out of work and in that respect alone the Budget has achieved its purpose. The Treasurer can squirm and protest as much as he likes but he cannot dodge the figures. He cannot explain away the destruction of jobs and the wrecking of human lives and opportunities under his Government’s policies. The Statistician’s figures are just as damning as those of the Commonwealth Employment Service which I have been quoting up to this stage. The Statistician’s figures tell the same story. According to the Statistician, unemployment in February was 5.3 per cent of the work force. Moreover, the average duration of unemployment has increased under this Government. In November 1975 the average duration of unemployment was 13 weeks. By November last year it had increased to 1 7.6 weeks. According to the Statistician, more than one third of the people unemployed during 1976 had been out of work for 6 weeks or more. Unemployment under this Government is not only afflicting more people; it is afflicting them longer.

The crisis for young people is an economic disaster and a human tragedy of a kind we have never experienced. Australia’s youth are the first and most vulnerable targets of the Treasurer’s policies. In October 1975 there were 8127 unemployed school leavers. In October 1976, after 1 1 lh months of Fraser Government, there were 1 1 238, an increase of 38 per cent. By January this year 54 937 school leavers were registeredthe highest total ever recorded- and the figures would have been higher but for the Government’s decision to deny income support to school leavers who could not find work. If we take all people under 2 1 years of age the number out of work at the end of January was 156 000- that is 26 000 more than a year before. According to the Statistician, one in every 6 young people in the labour force was unemployed in February. Of those between 15 and 19 years, more than a third- 33.9 per cent precisely- had been unemployed at some time during 1976. More than a third of Australia’s youth- the best educated generation Australia has produced- have tasted the futility, the hopelessness, the social rejection and personal humiliation of unemployment.

They have suffered from this Government ‘s policies and will bear the marks of that experience for the rest of their lives.

In rural and outer suburban areas the plight of young people is even more serious. In the western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne unemployment levels of 40per cent among young people are common. The average rate among youth is just under 17 per cent. In the Liverpool CES district in my electorate, over 58 per cent of the unemployed in February were juniors with little prospect of gaining work in the near future. The report of the Study Group on Youth Affairs commissioned by the Government and tabled on 24 February states:

Youth unemployment was regarded as the most pressing problem affecting young people in all areas visited.

The figures show that the highest unemployment in the Western world is in the western suburbs of Australia’s largest city. Nor are young people the only victims. Women, migrants and Aboriginals are all among the first to be retrenched and the last to be employed under the Fraser-Lynch recession. Between October 1975 and March of this year Aboriginal unemployment increased by 46 per cent-from over 8000 to over 12 000. In March, when there is usually a decline in the number of Aboriginals registered for employment, the number this year actually increaseddespite the fact that the Government threatened to withhold benefits from Aboriginals in remote areas unless they left their traditional homes and went to live in towns where no work was available for them.

The cost of this tragedy in economic and human terms is immeasurable. Some idea of the misery entailed can be found in recent reports and studies on the emotional and physical sideeffects of unemployment. The Australian Government Inquiry into Poverty commissioned a report which showed that one-fifth of unemployed people surveyed had convictions for criminal offences. Surveys by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, by social workers and by governments abroad show beyond doubt that unemployment is the first step in a cycle of personal and family breakdown that can lead to intractable social problems. The Government ignores these findings and brands the unemployed as loafers and misfits. The figures give the lie to the Government’s propaganda that work is available for the unemployed if only they would bother to look for it. At the end of April there were 21 000 unfilled vacancies for the 290 000 unemployed- one job for every 14 people seeking work. And among those seeking work are many of the best qualified and best trained graduates of our universities and tertiary institutionsmen and women whose valued skills are lost to the community. If last year’s graduates are still without work, what hope have thousands of others who will be seeking work in a few months time.

Finding jobs for the victims of the Treasurer’s incompetence can never be considered a cost or a burden on society. It is unemployment that takes the real toll- in waste, in lost production, in lost revenues, in direct and indirect costs that the community has to pay. The Government is blind to all evidence that its high unemployment policies are damaging human lives and setting back recovery. To run the Australian economy with an unemployment rate of 2.5 per cent means a loss of at least $ 1,000m in annual output. At the current level of unemployment, that is, in excess of 5 per cent, the cost to the economy in lost production must conservatively be set as being at least $2,000m. Much of this lost production would have flowed back to the Government in taxation revenue; the direct costs of income support schemes would be relieved. A recent survey of European Economic Community countries, commissioned by the Community’s Directorate of Social Affairs, provided a striking measure of the public sector costs of unemployment. After examining the contribution to government revenue which an employee makes through direct and indirect taxes, and the savings in unemployment benefits, the survey concluded:

In Britain government expenditure of up to 90 per cent of average earnings of industrial workers to enable people to work rather than be unemployed would lead not to a increase but a reduction in the budget deficit.

That is, an unemployed man, as soon as he became employed, would generate government revenue in excess of 90 per cent of his earnings. Other EEC countries reported increases in government revenue greater than the employed man’s earnings. The Australian Government must shift resources away from income maintenance for the unemployed to the generation of new employment opportunities and manpower policies if the tragic costs of unemployment are to be relieved.

The Government, always ready to blame the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for our economic problems, is still peddling the line that wage increases are causing unemployment. Only yesterday the Treasurer twice told us that the Commission’s wage judgments had put more people out of work. The cynicism and dishonesty of the Government’s attacks on the Commission are without precedent in our national life. If reducing real wages and living standards were the answer to our problems, unemployment by now would be well and truly cured. The truth is that, while real wages have fallen under this Government, unemployment has risen. The fallacy in the Government’s policy has been thoroughly exposed by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission itself. It has reached its findings on evidence put before it by all the partiesincluding the Government.

In his statement on 31 March the President of the Commission was quite clear about the relation between wage levels and recovery- and by recovery’ the President and the Commission meant, as most rational people would understand the word, the restoration of jobs, consumption and productivity. The President of the Commission said:

On the material before us, it is not clear that a reduction in real wages without immediate compensatory action from other sources will provide a stimulus for recovery. A reduction in consumption spending with further deterioration in economic activity could ensue. A further point to consider is the increased risk in these circumstances of a breakdown in our indexation package, which could add to inflation and discourage spending even more.

The Government offers a brutal and simplistic justification for its high unemployment policy. It seeks to persuade the Australian people that by throwing men and women out of work all our economic problems will be cured. There is no evidence that this is happening. Even if there were, a policy that subordinates jobs and individual welfare to corporate profits and investors ‘ dividends is an inhuman policy. It should be morally unacceptable to any Australian government, and no government but this would have entertained it.

The people are being told: ‘Your jobs are not important. Your family’s security and happiness are not important. Your children’s future is not important. Go without jobs, go without incomes, go without a fair and humane system of unemployment relief, and some time, somehow, some day, inflation and recession and industrial stagnation will be overcome’. Where is the evidence for this? Inflation is still running at more than 12 per cent a year, devaluation will make it worse, and the Government’s attack on disposable incomes has reduced the demand for goods and services. What sort of economic recovery is it that requires hundreds of thousands of Australians to go without work and to sacrifice their dignity and self-respect and the welfare of their families? Only the Fraser Government- only a government with the narrow and twisted conception of recovery which this Government espouses- would consider such a policy for a moment.

My colleague the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) will outline in this debate some specific measures the Government should take at once to head off our developing unemployment crisis. Those measures flow naturally from our policies in government and the economic proposals the Labor Parry has put forward since the Budget last August. In the short term there must be no further delay in developing realistic and worthwhile job-creation and manower schemes. The Fraser Government’s grabag of schemes and incentives has been worthless. Its community youth support scheme provides no employment opportunities at all for young people. It attempts to assist young people to find jobs that are not there.

The Government’s only other substantial response to the unemployment problem was the special youth employment training program which has assisted some 6200 young people out of the estimated 120 000 young people out of work. The Government has in fact reduced expenditure on employment assistance and job creation programs. In notes attached to Appropriation Bills (No. 3) and (No. 4), introduced in April, the Department of Finance announced that the Government had saved $10m on the National Employment and Training scheme this financial year. Why was this money not redirected to the special youth employment training scheme so that some of the thousands of unemployed young people could be provided with employment? The 1976-77 Budget reduced expenditure on unemployment relief grants, structural adjustment assistance and the Regional Employment Development scheme by $160m. That is the measure of the Government’s concern for the unemployed. It is ignoring manpower programs that will reduce short term unemployment and attack the long term problem of structural unemployment.

When unemployment in February reached its highest level since the Great Depression the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Robinson) informed us that unemployment was a myth. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations informed us that unemployment was stable. The Treasurer himself informed us that unemployment had nothing to do with economic recovery and that the figures did not matter. He said:

Unemployment data are never among the leading indicators of economic recovery.

I ask the House to reflect on those words. Certainly under the Fraser Government unemployment data give no sign of recovery, but what are we to think of a Treasurer who pretends that recovery is possible, and indeed is happening, while unemployment is getting worse? The Treasurer’s bewilderment and desperation with the state of the economy have led him in to a realm of metaphysics and obscurantism beyond the reach of rational argument. Recovery means higher unemployment! Reducing real wages will lead to greater consumption! Black means white!

No one in the Labor Party pretends that our unemployment crisis is other than difficult and deep-seated, or denies that the long term solutions will involve quite drastic approaches to the structural nature of the work force and our industries. There are no easy answers. Our structural problems, like the high social costs of our run down and inefficient community services, are in large part the legacy of decades of conservative neglect and the failure to come to grips with problems that have now become urgent. No government, however, can callously and deliberately encourage unemployment as the Fraser Government has done. No government can ignore the immediate challenge it poses to human welfare. No government can abrogate its responsibility to Australia’s youth- to the coming generation.

For the unemployed, especially for the young, the Government offers neither sympathy nor hope. Many of us know, and others can remember, the feelings of an earlier generation of Australians who lived through the Great Depression. It was a trauma that haunted them for the rest of their lives. Will the new generation of Australians be condemned to a similar fate? As a result of this Government’s policies, thousands of young Australians, whose lives have been blighted by the treatment this Government has given them, will forever be suspicious of our system and resentful of our institutions. For the rest of this century a growing body of people, alienated and without hope, largely identifiable by age or race or region, will nurse their rankling memories of social rejection and personal disillusionment.

The deliberate promotion of unemployment by the Fraser Government is not only adding to our economic problems and damaging the process of recovery but also destroying an essential part of the fabric of our national life. It is ensuring that large scale unemployment remains endemic in our work force and a permanent feature in the experience of our people. Without firm and committed policies to create jobs and restore employment, the Fraser Government will be sowing the seeds of permanent misery, of deep division and disunity, of destructive and perhaps ungovernable forces in Australia’s national life.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I second the motion. The Australian economy is in the grip of a paralysing recession. That recession has been aggravated by and prolonged through the unwise, ill-considered policies of the Government. This year, after some 18 months of conservative coalition government, the condition of the economy has worsened. Inflation, which was starting to come down in 1975, has now become intractable. Inflation for this fiscal year will be no lower than and, conceivably, higher than when the Government came into office. The recession is deeper and more depressing. Industrial output remains erratic and uncertain. The motor vehicle industry has slumped badly. The home building industry has contracted sharply. Retail sales in real terms fell some 3 per cent for the year to April. New capital expenditure for the March quarter was nearly 3 per cent down in real terms on the same period last year. Overtime worked is as low as it was last year and last year it was at an extremely low level.

In the face of these ominous indicators, the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) persists in assuring us that the economy is strengthening. He implies that the best way of making it stronger is by belting it harder. He is out of touch with economic reality just as he is out of his depth with economic management. The economic fantasies of the Treasurer can be no substitute for remedies for the forbidding economic conditions of the present. The Associated Chambers of Manufacturers of Australia and Bank of New South Wales quarterly survey of industrial trends, released towards the end of March, reported that manufacturers expected no improvement in the economy over the succeeding 6 months. Further reductions in unemployment were expected. Towards the end of April prominent Melbourne stockbroker, Mr A. C. Goode, expressed bis irritation with the Government’s economic incompetence by publicly complaining that the Government’s severe restraints were stifling the economy. Less than 6 weeks ago the Australian Chamber of Commerce and National Bank quarterly survey of business reported a set back to trading and profit results for Australian companies during the March quarter. There was a 19 per cent drop in the number of companies surveyed reporting good or satisfactory trading results and a 24 per cent fall in the number recording good or satisfactory profits. A month ago, the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research forecast worsening unemployment and inflation and expressed concern about the health and direction of the economy.

On 27 November 1975, the now Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said in his policy speech:

We have a comprehensive strategy to restore prosperity.

That was a cruel, ironical quirk. Since then the Government has been busily spearing the economy head first into the ground. The result is economic stagnation at a lower level of depression. Now is not the time for more of the same bitter economic brew that has done too much damage already. Unemployment in this country is too high. Tens of thousands of people are avoidably and unnecessarily out of work. More of the same ill-conceived economic measures will unnecessarily prolong and aggravate the unemployment problem. Now is the time for careful budgetary stimulation to selected areas of the economy to relieve the social and economic stresses so unremittingly applied to our society and its people by the clumsy economic tactics of the Government. The Government has to intervene to moderate the social and economic pain and disruption its policies are unnecessarily causing.

We are all as concerned as the Government is about inflation but we are not as indifferent or as blank as the Government is to the unnecessary and avoidable consequences of many of its actions. With the high level of idle human and physical resources available in certain sectors of the economy, such as the construction industry, in its broad definition, careful stimulation can be selectively directed into the economy without fuelling inflation. Furthermore, the more employment opportunities generated, the more money will be spent by consumers; in turn, the healthier demand- measured by sales activitywill become, and, accordingly, the better business conditions will be. The less unemployment comes down, the less this will happen.

Again, if we wait for market forces to provide the momentum to scrub out unemployment, we are in for an inordinately long and depressing wait. If there is to be any recovery in that way then increased demand would be met by using idle capacity in industry and working employees overtime before extra employment would be created. Capacity utilisation in industry is only 79 per cent and expected to fall, and overtime at 2.5 hours per employee in March is down nearly 40 per cent on the level for the comparable month of 3 years ago. It will be an extremely laggardly, hesitant recovery that has to depend on a depressed, stifled economy, wracked by massive unemployment, to generate any appreciable increase in aggregate demand.

The post-war record levels of unemployment for each month of this year are a national disgrace. Not only that, the inequitable way in which unemployment is distributed between various groups is neither moral nor tolerable. Unemployment disadvantages the young more than the rest of the work force. Young females are disadvantaged more than young males. Young migrants are disadvantaged more than other young members of the work force. Women suffer the burden of unemployment more than men. The unskilled, the semi-skilled, clerical and administrative employees suffer a disproportionate unemployment rate. The Aboriginals fare worst of all.

For instance, juniors are 39 per cent of the unemployed, but are only 12 per cent of the civilian work force. The unemployment rate among juniors is 15 per cent against a national rate of 5.2 per cent- that is, 3 times worse than for the community overall. There were 29 unemployed juniors for each unfilled vacancy against 15 unemployed for each unfilled vacancy nationally. In other words, competition for jobs among juniors is twice as tough as for the community overall. The unemployment rate among young females is 20 per cent greater than among young males. Unemployment among young migrants is nearly 17 per cent higher than among young Australian-born members of the work force. The rate of unemployment among women is nearly 70 per cent higher than among men.

The most dreadful level of unemployment wracks the Aboriginal work force- 50 per cent! Every second Aboriginal worker is unemployed! That is a national scandal. The unfair, unjust way in which the burden of unemployment is distributed should be regarded as an outrage. Members of the Government, like cowards sheltering behind falsehoods, blame it onto ‘dole bludgers’.

I concede that there is always a margin- a thin one- of the population who will abuse any public benefit. That does not explain an unemployment level of over 323 000 people-a level of unemployment 20 per cent higher than for the same month of last year and higher than that again for the same month of the preceding year. The unemployed are the casualties of the Government’s heavy cannonading of the economy. Cynical superficialities will not drive out the hard facts that unemployment is becoming more deep seated, more long term. For instance, 72 per cent of the unemployed were in receipt of unemployment benefits in March this year, compared to 58 per cent in March 1975.

Let us look at it from a different direction. More than every second person unemployed has been unemployed for 2 months or more. Every fifth person unemployed has been unemployed for half a year or more. That means that hard core, long-term unemployment is becoming chronic. The situation is worse now than for any other time in the 1970s. The evidence is that the blight will get worse. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which illustrates the points I have been making.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objecton, leave is granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr HAYDEN:

– Mysteriously, the work force is static after 18 months of conservative coalition government. No new jobs have been created by the Government but it has achieved record unemployment. The Government has succeeded in being a failure. It is a dreadful failure where there is a desperate need for it to be successful, in handling the economy, getting business going, winding down inflation and cutting back unemployment.

Let us look at the mysterious loss of work force numbers. In January 1976 there were 4 738 500 civilian employees, according to the seasonally adjusted index of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In March 1977 the figure was 4 730 100; that is, the civilian work force contracted by some 8500 people in an 18-month period when it would have been expected reasonably to have expanded by nearly 3 per cent or some 140 000. Somehow the Government has managed to lose the equivalent of about 2.3 per cent of the total labour force. In other words, unemployment is far more serious than the official statisitics disclose. Real unemployment would appear to be of the order of well over 7 per cent and nudging 7.5 per cent. That is a disgraceful situation. There is no need for such an extraordinary high level of unemployment.

Unemployment is now higher than it was when the Government came to office but inflation has not abated below the level applying when the Government entered office. This is a shocking record of greater sacrifice imposed on the community without achieving any progress in managing the economy. But then, as has been observed so often before, the Prime Minister believes life is not meant to be easy- or, as he would put it another way, sacrifice is ennobling for the soul, provided it is made by someone else. I understand he wants to give even greater lustre to that virtue by reducing or at least not increasing unemployment benefits. So, between Government abuse of the unemployed as bludgers’ and efforts directed at reducing their living standards by squeezing their income from benefits, the hapless victims of the Government’s economic severity find that they are treated like felons. Surely this is the only time that innocent victims have been treated as though they were knowing and wilful offenders.

In spite of the contracted, sluggish state of the economy and the obvious undesirability of contracting it further, the Government is clearly charting a course of more austerity. The Prime Minister says the next Budget will be a no growth budget. He also confesses that additional costs of $ 1,000m are to be met from within that Budget, that is, for commitments entered into in the last Budget but to be paid for in the forthcoming Budget. So it is not a no growth budget for many of the established programs included within it. It will represent a severe contraction in real terms for many of those established programs. But it is even tougher than that. The Government is aiming for a Budget deficit of $ 1,500m as its preferred option. It cannot possibly do that without belting the economy through the floor. It is more likely to settle out of necessity for a deficit of somewhere near $2, 000m, according to informed sources’ advising the media. In short, the no growth Budget is converted into an instrument of severe and damaging contraction.

Within the range of parameters mentioned, the Government is considering, first, a cut back of $ 1,000m in existing programs with a deficit of about $2,900m. That would be a Budget with no aggregate real growth in outlays or receipts. Alternatively it is considering cuts of between $ 1,870m and $2,370m, that is, with deficits within the range of $2,000m to $ 1,500m and with no aggregate real growth in outlays or receipts. In any instance, even with the mildest of the 3 possibilities, the consequences are forbidding. Unemployment as severe as it has been, would become rampant. Business activity would falter and collapse. The social and economic consequences would be shattering.

Seeking to reduce the level of cuts in existing programs by increasing revenue solves nothing. Increased personal taxes mean less disposable income. That means even feebler consumer demand and, in turn, weaker business activity. Increased indirect taxes and government charges will reduce consumer spending power and aggravate inflation. The consequences of more economic primitivism from the Prime Minister and his clockwork Treasurer- of more economic contraction- will have most undesirable consequences, socially as well as economically.

The next Budget should provide for mild, carefully selected and regulated expansion. A community employment creation program providing jobs for the unemployed on projects of lasting social benefit ought to be initiated. A substantial number of jobs can be generated relatively quickly in this way. After about 9 months’ operation the Regional Employment Development scheme was employing 3 1 000 people. With second and third round effects, many more jobs could have been created and a greater level of business activity sustained than would have otherwise been the case. The peak cost of the scheme was $ 1 23m in 1 975-76.

It is far better to create meaningful employment of real and lasting benefit to the community in this way than to have people living on unemployment benefits and denied the opportunity of productively contributing to the community. Similarly, it is preferable to generate jobs and support the private sector by mild budgetary expansion in support, for example, of the construction industry. We can get a fairly accurate costing of such a program for 1976-77 by using figures quoted by the Treasurer in the House on Monday, assuming a full year experience and using this to illustrate the point. The Treasurer said that, with a job creation program providing a maximum of 50 000 jobs in the course of a year, the savings on unemployment benefits would be $75m. That means he has based his calculations on an annual average job creation level of about 26 000 jobs. In turn, using average weekly earnings which would tend to exaggerate the total cost, and assuming a 50-50 break up in costs between labour and other resources on average, one can estimate a total cost of some $540m in a full year to provide up to 50 000 jobs.

That is, on the Treasurer’s figures, the cost of providing such a large number of jobs would be nearly $300m less than the figure I had on an earlier occasion this week suggested as a result of quite cautious and conservative calculations. As against that, there would be personal tax revenues generated and unemployment benefits saved, as a result of these extra jobs, of $50m and $75m respectively. In other words, for a little over $400m net, 50 000 jobs could be created in the course of a year. Allowing for the momentum that would inject into the economy, there would be jobs for more than 50 000 people because one could reasonably expect that a turnover would take place as mild expansion occurred and additional job opportunities were created through second and third round effects in other parts of the economy. In the process, socially and economically valuable output could be provided for the community.

In short, nearly 1 per cent of the unemployment could be eliminated. As against that a recent Committee of Economic Development of Australia survey disclosed that a 10 per cent increase in sales would only result in a 2 per cent increase in employment among manufacturers surveyed. That is because extra demand would be met from overtime, surplus capacity stocks, and so on without the need for much in the way of extra staff. To the extent that this can be extrapolated across the manufacturing sector- and it can only be done in a very rough and generalised way to give a guideline- it means that a 10 per cent real increase in sales would generate less than a couple of thousand jobs.

In short, in the absence of Government intervention, any recovery will be long, slow and painful. It is the firm commitment of the Opposition that there ought to be immediate Government intervention of the nature which I have indicated today and of the nature which the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has indicated in greater detail on earlier occasions.

The absence of Government intervention unnecessarily condemns tens of thousands of Australians to the social distress and personal humiliation of unemployment. Its absence deprives

Australia of the added output services and the benefit of projects of lasting social value. Its absence is a prodigal waste of output potential. By careful selection and by responsible fiscal and physical administration of such a program there would be no fueling of further inflation. The Government’s failure to adopt such a responsible course is evidence that it shirks its responsibilities to business, the unemployed and the nation. For that it deserves the strictest condemnation of this House and of the community.

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) and the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) remind me very much of the arsonist who, having over a long time created a notorious reputation for the burning down of public buildings, suddenly stands up and asks quesions about the need for fire prevention. This debate is about a problem which was created, in fact, by the predecessor administration of this Government. I say without any shadow of a doubt that it is a cynical, hypocritical, humbug motion which has been moved on this occasion in an attempt to show a sense of unity between 2 clearly disunified sides of the Opposition. It was moved by a man who, as the Sydney Morning Herald has made clear in its editorial this morning, can lay no claim to a vote of confidence. He squeaked home by the narrowest possible margin. The honourable gentleman talks about confidence in the House and outside it, but it would be fair to say that the confidence of the Opposition in him was shown by only one vote, his own vote.

Mr Hunt:

– And his son.

Mr LYNCH:

– He would not now be the continuing Leader of the Opposition without the vote of his son. Without that vote he would be history. I see the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) looking across. He would have a sense of support for that view. There is no doubt that the Opposition is disunified. The disunity is quite clear on this occasion. I wonder how the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) the former shadow treasurer, feels about a debate in which he has been quite clearly displaced by the honourable member for Oxley. Let us look at where the onus in this debate ought to lie. I say in quite firm terms that this censure motion was moved by a party which in government created the most devastating recession in over a quarter of a century. In Opposition it has failed to come forward with any workable, viable alternative economic policy.

I want to do a number of things in this debate. Firstly I shall look at the record, then put on the table the achievements of this Government, then analyse the problem of unemployment and point out where responsibility for that problem lies. Let us look at broken promises. The honourable gentleman who yesterday won by one or two votes is a man discredited in the history of this country as the Prime Minister who broke more promises than did any other man who held that office. I really do not need to weary the House with the sordid story of the loans scandal. What an irony it is for the honourable gentleman to make in this motion some reference to the High Court. The honourable gentleman knows that in a secret cabal a few Ministers set out to destroy and show contempt for law and order in this country. The honourable gentleman knows that very well indeed.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The matter to which the honourable gentleman refers is sub judice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable the Treasurer has made reference to the matter but not in such a way as would offend sub judice rules.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I take another point of order, Mr Speaker. The gist of what the honourable gentleman said, namely, that a cabal of Ministers had met to break the law, is the very essence of the case before the court, and I ask you to rule that it is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable gentleman not to refer to that matter again.

Mr LYNCH:

– I thank the honourable gentleman for the point of order which he has taken. By inference, one is never quite sure what it is that he is saying about the Leader of the Opposition. I know what may be said privately by many members on the other side. I will leave the point at that. I think that all members of this House know precisely what the position is, and if any members on the Opposition side ever want to know the full facts and have them paraded let them ask me as Treasurer to put on the table the files relating to that question. We on this side of the House have nothing to hide, and if the Opposition has any inquiry to make about it let it front up a question in the House to me saying: ‘Put the files on the table.’

I want to talk first of all about the broken promises of the former Prime Minister. What did he say in his 1 972 policy speech? He said:

The most pressing need in the tax field is to retard the trend by which inflation has forced lower and middle income earners into high tax brackets.

That was the promise. Let me ask: What was the performance? His Government increased income tax receipts by 89 per cent in its first 2 Budgets and repudiated the indexation of personal income tax, in spite of the fact that the inquiry it had set up to look at the matter specifically recommended indexation. The Leader of the Opposition said in his 1974 policy speech:

I see no reason why taxes, direct or indirect, need to be increased in order to pay for any of our continuing commitments.

In the 1974-75 Budget there were substantial increases in an extensive range of taxes, including a surcharge on unearned income. In Labor’s last Budget there were massive increases in postal charges and duties on beer, spirits and tobacco, as well as new taxes on petroleum, and a coal export levy. Let me also remind the Leader of the Opposition of his promise in 1972, stated in the following terms:

Labor’s first priority will be to restore genuine full employment- without qualification, without hedging.

As this House is well aware, the rate of unemployment reached 5.6 per cent of the work force at the end of December 1975, compared with the average rate of unemployment between 1963 and 1972 of 1.3 per cent. Time after time after time, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) and 50 per cent of the Labor Party in this House are well aware, the former Prime Minister broke promise after promise, discredited statement after statement, and for that reason he is no longer regarded by his own colleagues or the people of this country as a credible figure in the Australian Labor Party. I remind the honourable gentleman of what he said in his 1974 policy speech:

Price increases are now slowing down as government policies take full effect. This trend will be continued in coming months.

If one looks at the record one finds that inflation at the end of 1 975 was running at an annual rate of 14 per cent, or 16.4 per cent if the impact of Medibank is excluded, compared with the annual rate of 4.5 per cent at the end of 1972. The Leader of the Opposition promised at the June 1974 Premiers Conference that he would slow the rate of increase in government spending, and then proceeded to endorse the 1974-75 Budget, which resulted in an increase of 46 per cent in government outlays. The Leader of the Opposition promised economic growth of between 6 per cent and 7 per cent in each of his 3 years in office. The fact is that gross non-farm product in the December quarter of 1975, seasonally adjusted and at constant prices, was still 2 per cent below its peak level recorded 2 years earlier.

Apart from what the Leader of the Opposition said in this debate about promises, we also had the ‘economic rationalist’ the honourable member for Oxley, who had the gall, the cheek, the hide to talk in this House about economic management. Let us have a quick look at his personal record. Let me remind the people at large that that honourable gentleman brought down a Budget with an estimated deficit of $2.8 billion, which by January was expected to run out at $4.7 billion. That is his record of economic management. In August last year we said that the deficit would be $2.6 billion. It will run out on the track of that figure when the final information is available at the end of June. The honourable member for Oxley based his Budget on an increase of 5 per cent in real gross non-farm product. The result of his economic mismanagement was in fact an increase of only 1.1 per cent. We said in August last year that it would be 4 per cent. I maintain that the strategy is on line with that expectation. The honourable member for Oxley talked about a monetary policy which would not be fully accommodating to inflation. We came into office when monetary growth was at an annual rate of around 20 per cent, grossly accommodating to inflation. That was towards the end of 1975. 1 remind the honourable gentleman of what he said about speculation in relation to devaluation. The honourable gentleman, like the Leader of the Opposition, has a record in this House of irresponsibility. Looking at his record, I am prepared to match against it what we have done, point by point, chapter and verse.

The economic policy issued by the Opposition earlier this year would bring about a sharp increase in inflation and a slump in business activity, and would lead inevitably to further unemployment. I remind the House of what the honourable member for Adelaide said about the Opposition’s economic policy:

The danger in Labor’s approach is the possibility of intensified pressure of demand, leading to further prolonging of inflation.

I would go on to say: ‘And leading to the further loss of job opportunities.’ The Opposition has a policy which makes no reference to wages at all. I can assume only that full wage indexation as set out in the so-called Whitlam 5-point plan of 14 October last remains as ALP policy in this area. One never knows what the policy of the Australian Labor Party is. There was the Whitlam plan in October of last year. There was the Hurford plan in the earlier months of this year. Recently there was the Hayden plan. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, re-established in his position, confirmed himself as yesterday’s man by going back to precisely the policy that he pursued in such disastrous terms between 1972 and 1975.

This is an Opposition which has confirmed its commitment to abolishing the investment allowance and indicated that it would reduce the depreciation allowances available to business. There is no doubt that that would lead to a massive slump in business confidence and investment spending, thereby killing off economic recovery at the present time. The Labor Party policy abandons monetary policy as an instrument in the fight against inflation. All members of this House will appreciate how important it is that the rate of monetary growth should not be acorn.modating to inflation and that overall policy in this area should be applied responsibly but with that firmness which is required at the present time. Because of the increase in the deficit which is inherent in the Opposition’s plan, there would be not only an inflationary increase in the money supply, but also, I believe higher interest rates as well. The Labor Party’s economic policy statement issued this year makes no mention of the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition last October for reductions in company tax, more generous income tax rebates, and a reduced health levy.

Finally, the confusion which surrounds what the Opposition now stands for was compounded by the reference of the honourable member for Oxley to $800m-worth of additional expenditure, claiming that major offsets could be achieved by suspending the investment allowance. As I have said in this House, and I want to reaffirm it because the honourable gentleman frankly cannot count, although the estimated cost of that allowance in 1977-78 is $450m, the amount relates to incomes earned and investments undertaken in the current year. Therefore the major saving about which the honourable gentleman talked in so simplistic a sense could not be made unless the policy were to be adopted on a retrospective basis. I am reminded that the honourable gentleman made this same mistake in relation to the investment allowance when he, as Treasurer, sought to cost the then Opposition’s economic policy which was put down during 1975. The honourable gentleman was as much in error then as apparently he is now. Frankly, he is unable, apparently, to understand the retrospective nature of the investment allowance. The fact is that the net cost of what the honourable gentleman puts forward would be about $675 m, not the $200m which has been claimed.

I wish to turn now to the Government’s achievements. Before going through a number of the areas in which the economy has shown a significant pick-up, let me quote the remarks of people independent of the Government and outside of this House. I refer, firstly, to Philip Shrapnel’s Economic Outlook of March 1977, in which he comments: we were able to confirm that the recovery in business activity in Australia is now clearly under way . . .

He goes on to say:

The plain fact is that the Government has done nearly everything that needed to be done to reverse the following policies that created the economic crisis of 1974-75 . . .

Then he goes on to say:

We believe that the Government knows exactly what it is doing, that its policies are coherent and consistent, and that it will correct the chaotic situation that it inherited within the 3-year term that it considered necessary to do so.

The retiring Chairman of the Australian Finance Conference, Mr K. E. Hill, is reported in the Melbourne Herald, as recently as 3 1 May, as saying:

Solid progress has been made on the long road towards controlling inflation.

He goes on to comment that the annual rate of inflation, after allowing for various Medibank changes, has been reduced by around 5 per cent over the past year, and that in the same period there has been continued economic growth in real terms.

Hill Samuel Aust Ltd, a very respected merchant banking house in this country, made the following comments in its May 1977 bulletin:

The Government’s economic policies, as reflected in the low March quarter’s inflation level, are proving successful and if the Government holds firm on its policies we believe that by September-October of this year the outlook for the Australian economy will be substantially more favourable.

The recent economic advisory service bulletin of the W. D. Scott organisation said this: . . there are fundamental forces which lead to the conclusion that continuing recovery will be shown for the current period . . .

The document goes on to make a number of other comments about the recovery process which are consistent with that judgment. I note also from a recent Press clipping that the chief economist of the Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd, Mr J. K. Brunner, forecast a very significant upturn in the level of private investment in Australia next year.

All of this is consistent with the belief that the Government has put forward on a number of occasions, well supported not only by its official advisers but also by advice from outside. We have said, and I repeat it here again, that there will be no quick take-off. The Government does not seek that. Our economic policy is predicated on a gradual, sustainable growth par. The control of inflation will lead to gradual strengthening in economic activity and, as a consequence, to the progressive creation of job opportunities. I believe it can be seen without any shadow of doubt whatsoever that the strategy is beginning to work and, if held in place, certainly will produce the required results. As we have said all along, bringing this nation out of recession and putting it back into a pattern of strong economic growth will be a drawn out process. I want to make that perfectly clear, because it is consistent with all that we have said.

As I mentioned before, we have aimed deliberately for a moderate increase in real economic growth over the current financial year. If honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House want to refer to the international position, let me point out that, as both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have emphasised, there is a need for caution in the pursuit of expansionary policies and, in the cases of countries that have yet to bring down the rate of inflation to very low rates, continuing fiscal and monetary restraint is essential to the achievement of non-inflationary growth. I remind the House of the communique issued by the OECD Ministers last year, which stated in this connection: . . because of the virulence of recent inflationary experience, there is a danger that inflationary expectations could revive quite strongly if the pace of the recovery is too fast.

The OECD also pointed to the risk of supply bottlenecks occurring in the fairly early stages of the recovery process because of the very low level of investment in basic industries during the recession. On this note I want to quote again from the communique of last year, which stated:

In most countries, policies should be directed more towards promoting investment rather than consumption. In many cases, this will require an appropriate recovery of profits from the depressed levels of recent years.

Last year’s Budget conformed very closely to the overall strategy to which I have just referred. It was based on the continuing advice of the OECD and the IMF. It was a Budget of fiscal and monetary restraint. The rate of increase in outlays was reduced from 23 per cent to slightly over 1 1 per cent and the deficit was brought down, thereby making it possible for a moderation in the rate of monetary expansion.

We have introduced a tax allowance for investment in plant and equipment as from 1

January 1976 and foreshadowed the introduction of the first stage of company tax indexation as from 1 July of this year. That is a very solid start to tax reform in the corporate area. It is in addition, of course, to tax reform in the form of tax indexation and tax reduction for individuals. The fiscal and monetary policies, combined with the deliberate stimulus to investment, have led to a strong moderation in inflation, a strong recovery in investment and company profits, a moderate increase in consumption and a very encouraging lift in real economic growth. We on this side of the House reject the pessimism, despair, gloom and despondency which the Jeremiahs and knockers of the Australian community are seeking to create at the present time.

Let me illustrate the broad thrust of this proposition. First of all, inflation was significantly curbed during 1976. After allowance for the effects of changes to health insurance arrangements and indirect taxes and charges, the consumer price index in the second half of 1976 rose at an annual rate some 4 percentage points, or more, less than in the second half of 1975. There is further evidence of the decline in inflation during that period if one wants to refer to other significant economic indicators. I mention that the implicit deflator for the major components of gross national expenditure increased by 1.3 per cent in the December quarter of last year, compared with 4.4 per cent in the December quarter of 1975. 1976 was a year in which activity picked up. Over the year to the December quarter, the gross non-farm product increased by 5.2 per cent in real terms. That was a very solid start to achieving the 4 per cent growth projected in the Budget documents. Consumers increased their spending during the period. Real private final consumption expenditure rose by 2.2 per cent in the second half of 1976, to be 3 per cent higher than in the corresponding period of 1975. Company profitability began to recover strongly. Company profits were some 33 per cent higher m the December quarter of 1976 than a year earlier. There was an investment revival during the year. It was a strong revival. Investment in plant and equipment by priviate enterprises increased over the year, in real terms, not by one or two per cent but by 18.6 per cent. Private investment in dwellings rose by 20.4 per cent, also in real terms.

Therefore in spite of what our opponents have sought to say in the House today, 1976 was a year of solid economic performance. Quite contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition has said today, the standard of living in Australia is higher now than it was when we took office. The final December quarter national accounts figures showed that real household disposable income was 1.2 per cent higher in the December quarter of 1 976 than in the December quarter of 1 975 . In order to compare Labor’s record in its last 6 months in office we should look at the second half of calendar year 1975 when real household disposable income during that period declined at an annual rate of 0.3 per cent compared with the first half of that year. This again is a reflection on the Budget of the honourable member for Oxley.

Dr Klugman:

– It was not passed until 11 November when you took over.

Mr LYNCH:

– I might also mention in a quiet way to the honouable member who is interjecting that families spent a greater proportion of their incomes in 1976 than they did in 1975 and real consumption per capita increased between the December quarter of 1975 and the December quarter of last year. On these 2 counts, and there are many others, Australian families were better off at the end of 1 976 both in terms of their real incomes and their levels of real spending than they were at the beginning of the year. Therefore, Australians are better placed now to upgrade the quality as well as the level of thenstandard of living. Opposition spokesmen have sought consistently inside and outside this House to tell the Australian people that living standards have declined, but the facts deny that.

I want to refer now- I have left the good wine until last so as to bring responsibility home to where it belongs- to unemployment in Australia. The Opposition is seeking to fasten onto the politics of unemployment and it deserves the condemnation and indictment of the honourable members of this House for doing so. It created the very problem about which it now complains. As my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) has said, unemployment in Australia is too high, and I reaffirm that. I recall what I said in the Budget Speech last year, that the Government yields to none in its concern for the unemployed. In bringing down that Budget I made it plain that little, if any, improvement in the unemployment position could be expected in 1976 but that some improvement was envisaged in line with strengthening economic activity further into 1977. Recent figures are in no way inconsistent with those Budget expectations. What the figures really imply is that the number of persons genuinely unemployed is a matter for debate and the Government properly has sought to put the level of unemployment in context. There is a discrepency between the figures produced by the Commonwealth Employment Service and those prepared by the Commonwealth Bureau of Statistics, a point which I took up with the Opposition yesterday. There are doubts about the real meaning of the figures prepared by the CES, but I shall not go into the details here because they have been adequately outlined in recent debates.

I turn now to employment as opposed to unemployment. Seasonally adjusted civilian employment fell by around 78 000 between June 1974 and December 1975 when honourable gentlemen opposite were in governement. Again in seasonally adjusted terms, the fall in employment was arrested during 1976, and as at last December employment was a little higher than it was in the same month of the previous year. I know that unemployment is a matter of concern to many people in this country and it remains a matter of concern to this Government. But there will be no improvement in the unemployment position while the profit share remains as it is, while honourable gentlemen opposite preach concern and despondency about the Australian economy, and while the present level of wage indexation is feeding into prices. The real problem of unemployment relates to the simple decision that an employer faces at present. When he looks at the price of labour and at the operations of his company- whether it is a large company or a small company- he takes a business decision that the company cannot meet the cost of labour as determined by the processes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and by discussions between employers and employees.

In conclusion, honourable gentlemen opposite complain about a problem which they effectively created. No government has put more people into the ranks of the unemployed than the Labor Government. In 1974-75 there were 200 000 unemployed and it is a matter of humbuggery and a cynical reflection on the Opposition- I said humbuggery’ and that is a fair term to use-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not think it is a fair term to use and the Minister will not use it again.

Mr LYNCH:

-All right. The Opposition comes into this House suggesting make-work programs of a type which it rejected when in government. Make-work schemes under Labor started in 1974 when there were 150 000 unemployed and concluded in December 1975 when there were 328 000 unemployed. Labor rejected the schemes which it now suggests we ought to adopt. The Government rejects the motion, and I move:

Question put.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)

AYES: 80

NOES: 30

Majority……. 50

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

That the motion (Mr E. G. Whitlam’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.)

AYES: 31

NOES: 79

Majority…….. 48

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2411

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

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

- Mr Speaker, I ask that questions be placed on the notice paper.

page 2411

RIVER MURRAY COMMISSION

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for National Resources · Richmond · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 2 1 of the River Murray Waters Act 19151 present the report of the River Murray Commission for the year ended 1976.

page 2411

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Mr SINCLAIR:
Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs · New England · NCP/NP

– On behalf of the honourable member for Bradfield, leader, and the honourable member for Banks, member, I table the report of the Australian delegation to the twenty-eighth ordinary session of the Council of Europe

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2411

ABORIGINAL LOANS COMMISSION

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Aboriginal Loans Commission Act 1974 I present the report of the Aboriginal Loans Commission for the year ended June 1 976.

page 2411

EDUCATION LOANS

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the committee appointed to examine the desirability and feasibility of introducing a system of loans for Australian post-secondary students. With the report I also present a document which I have received separately from Mr Michael Gallagher, who is the education research officer of the Australian Union of Students and who was a member of the committee. His statement is in the form of a critique by the AUS of the committee’s proposals and of the terms of reference for the investigation.

page 2411

ABORIGINAL LAND FUND COMMISSION

Mr VINER:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Stirling · LP

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Aboriginal Land Fund Act 1974, 1 present the report of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission for the year ended June 1976. Due to the limited number of copies presently available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Bills and Papers Office and the Parliamentary Library. Further copies of the report will be available shortly and a copy will be mailed to each member.

page 2411

INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO RADIO AUSTRALIA

Mr ERIC ROBINSON (McPhersonMinister for Post and Telecommunications)For the information of honourable members I present the report of the independent inquiry into Radio A ustralia.

page 2411

JOINT DEFENCE SPACE RESEARCH FACILITY AT PINE GAP

Ministerial Statement

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · Moreton · LP

– by leave- Successive governments have repeatedly stated that the nature of the research programs at the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap, its operation and the information derived from the programs are classified and must remain so. Ministers of both Labor and coalition governments who have been briefed on the facility have accepted that it is in Australia’s national interest to participate in the facility and to preserve its secrecy. This is still the position and the Government will not depart from the long-standing practice of neither confirming nor denying speculation and claimed revelations’ about the facility. However, in the light of suggestions that the facility might have been used in bad faith by our American partner against Australian interests and to make an unauthorised intrusion into Australian sovereignty, the Government has decided to give some public reassurance as to the basis on which Australian Governments have continued to support the facility and its operations.

Those Australians and Americans whose briefing has been authorised by their respective Governments are fully aware of the nature of the work of the facility and how the facility is operated. Those at the site whose responsibilities so require have equal right of access to all parts of the facility and to its activities and all results of the research. This right of access excludes only the 2 national communications rooms of the operating partners, to which, in accordance with standard practice at all joint installations, access is restricted to preserve national cipher security. National privacy in this respect, however, does not, and cannot, extend to denial of knowledge of the programs and activities of the facility.

The interdependence of the staff in their work and the physical layout of the various areas of work are such that the scope of a program being undertaken is clear to all working there, Australia or American, and to supervisors visiting the areas. Even the most detailed information can be readily obtained and checked.

The senior Australian on site is the Australian defence representative. He works closely with his United States counterpart, participating daily in the decision-making concerned with program activities. He likewise attends the daily staff conferences and meetings reviewing operations. He has detailed knowledge and experience of the capability and activities of the facility and, of course, complete access at any time to all areas and operations. There are other Australians on the floor working across the various shifts and programs and with unrestricted access. There is no way in which systematic deception or activities detrimental to Australian interests could go undetected, even were it assumed that it was feasible and advantageous ever to attempt them.

Programs are actively monitored, both at the facility and by the Department of Defence in Canberra, to ensure compatibility with Australian national policy and interests. Australia has the right to intervene if it has doubts or objections regarding any activity. As the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) said on 7 February 1975:

We know what goes on there and we can stop it if we want to.

That was true then and it is true now. Under Mr Whitlam’s Administration Australia’s control arrangements regarding the facility were closely reviewed and strengthened.

The Government rests its full confidence in the facility’s being used only in accordance with purposes agreed by Australia on the knowledge of the facility’s purpose and activities over many years and on the practical arrangements that ensure Australian access to and control of its functions and operations. This confidence is reinforced by the judgment that a United States administration would be unlikely to put in jeopardy the valuable benefits derived from the facility by trying to use the facility to gain some much less significant advantage in respect of Australia.

The former Prime Minister, Mr E. G. Whitlam, who was, of course, briefed on the facility, its operations and how it functioned shortly after assuming office, and again in 1973 and 1974, publicly declared that the facility operated with his Government’s ‘full knowledge and concurrence’. He spoke publicly also of the valuable contribution made by the facility to world peace. Ministers in the present Government who have been briefed about the facility fully support such comments. They also are completely satisfied that the facility is not used against Australian interests, governmental or private.

I might add to this statement that, subject to his obligation to preserve secrecy, which he renewed in the House on 4 May, my friend the honourable the Leader of the Opposition is welcome at any time to refresh his briefing on the facility in the Department of Defence and to raise any questions regarding it. I present the following paper:

Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine GapMinisterial Statement, 2 June 1977.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr E. G. Whitlam) adjourned.

page 2412

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present the Committee’s report on the Middle East together with extracts of the transcript of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr BEAZLEY:

-by leave-This report is a substantial one and is the third report that the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has presented to the Parliament on the general region known as the Middle East: the first 8 years ago; the second last year and the present one.

The ‘Middle East’ was an epicentre in civilisation balance a millennium ago. It is, today, an epicentre for Euro-Asia and a great part of Africa and from this centre the waves of disequilibrium can sweep to the Australasian shores. The Committee has disciplined its investigation by examining the epicentre of Arab and Israeli tensions and their patron powers. We set down the facts as we discerned them and the discernable deductions we have made from those facts. However, we feel it incumbent upon us to indicate that the Committee cast a collective eye upon the periphery of the epicentre, particularly to the peripheral economic and military powers. We indicate the economic power of the oil producing states upon the periphery. A disturbance of a major order at the Euro-Asian epicentre would surely affect the Asian land mass as well as Australasia as it has in the immediate past and has begun to shake the economic stability of the industrialised nations once again. It is the hope of the Committee that the report will be debated by Parliament, digested by Parliament and will concern the Parliament. We think we can say as a

Committee that we regard the subject matter reported as sombre.

A sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence heard evidence from or held informal discussions with over 40 witnesses. The evidence was heard in camera but some of it is being tabled with this report. Because of the human tragedy in Lebanon and its outreach for Australia with its large Lebanese community, priority was given to aspects dealing with Lebanon. Members will recall that the Committee tabled on 2 December 1976 a report entitled The Lebanon Crisis- Humanitarian Aspects. This further report concentrates on the Arab-Israeli dispute, it evaluates the prospects for peace and war, and the likely outcome in the unfortunate event of another war. The report also examines Great Power rivalry in the Middle East, the Palestinian question, and the importance of Middle East oil to the world and Australia. The Committee also reports in some detail on Australia’s growing interest in the Middle East.

The comprehensive report culminates in a large number of findings but due to time constraints I shall mention only a few. In the always unpredictable Middle East situation a fifth war in the region- although less likely in the short term- is easy to imagine and yet unthinkable in its consequences, which are likely to be more serious than in previous wars. Arab warnings of a renewed use of the oil weapon is a gloomy prospect for the non-communist industrialised nations. The Arabs now have an additional means of diplomatic pressure- their vast reserves of petro-dollars accumulated since 1973. The Soviet Union, which has experienced reduced influence in the region, may be tempted to make use of the Soviet Union’s improved military capacity for intervention in the Middle East and thus risk a confrontation with the United States. Another war is likely to involve a much wider participation of Arab states than in 1 973.

In any lasting Middle East peace settlement whereby all parties genuinely concede the right of every state in the area to live in peace and security there is a need to take account of a number of geo-strategic factors which are outlined in this report. These include, firstly, Israel ‘s feeling of extreme vulnerability if confined to her pre- 1967 boundaries and, secondly, that over one million Palestinians live in Israeli occupied territories and could be an increasing source of internal unrest, and there are about another 2 million Palestinians who presumably aspire to the creation of a Palestinian homeland.

The Palestinians’ future must be resolved before the Israeli-Arab problem can be finally solved. There is widening support for a Palestinian homeland ‘alongside’ Israel. Preferably such a homeland should be associated with Jordan in the hope that King Hussein could keep dissident elements under control. While the Committee accepts such a concept in principle, it believes that Israel cannot be expected to allow a Palestinian homeland so close to the bulk of Israel’s population until such time as the Palestine Liberation Organisation accepts Israel’s right to exist. The Palestinian National Council declined to soften its attitude at its Cairo meeting in March. Australia has a moral responsibility to continue to support the survival of Israel- a small state with a democratic tradition.

Despite the hair-trigger readiness for war in the Middle East ‘confrontation’ states, there is optimism particularly among conciliatory Arab leaders that a Middle East peace settlement can be negotiated at Geneva within the next 12 months. This optimism is largely based on the belief that the United States can persuade Israel to withdraw from the Territory it captured in the 1967 war. United States and Soviet rivalry has focused on the Middle East where the United States is now the dominating influence. The shape of negotiations in the months ahead will depend largely on Israel’s response to any United States pressure towards a compromise. United States pressure is not unrelated to United States friendship with Saudi Arabia, and lately with Egypt, and is due to United States obligations to Western Europe and Japan, which are dependent on Middle East oil. The Americans are in a unique position ‘to influence’ Israel. Ultimately, however, the Israeli Government will make the decisions on any concessions that relate to Israel ‘s survival.

Despite the great difficulties described in this report, the next year or two is a particularly opportune time to launch a major peace offensive in the Middle East. President Carter is still in his post-election ‘honeymoon’ phase and therefore in a better position to influence Israel; the Israelis, although politically more isolated, can bargain from a position of military strength, especially in relation to Egypt; and the ‘moderate’ Arab states are in the mood to talk peace and are less constrained by the PLO, which has at the moment little capacity for independent action. The parties concerned should use this opportunity. The Committee would like to see an early and lasting peace settlement in the Middle East but it is concerned that a Geneva Peace Conference and President Carter’s optimistic statements about peace in the Middle East may build up a false expectation of wholesale concessions which Israel cannot afford to make. This may disillusion moderate Arab states with America’s Middle East policy, and may cause Egypt to welcome again large-scale Russian military supplies, which would make feasible in due course another combined Arab round against Israel. The best prospects for avoiding war may result from a continuation of ‘stepbystep’ settlements but not necessarily on all fronts. There is little scope for Israeli concessions on the Golan Heights.

The early 1 980s will be a particularly dangerous period in the Middle East. The world will be much more dependent on Arab oil in the early 1980s until such time as alternative energy sources can be developed. Israel will find the Arabs in a position of greater diplomatic strength due to their increased ability to wield the oil weapon. It may then be too late for Israel to make concessions to the Arabs, who are likely to have become disenchanted with United States peace efforts if they fail to bring results by then. The Arabs will then have the choice between the war option or the oil option, as practised in 1 973. Unfortunately for the peace of the world, the Arabs may combine both their options. The Arab oil producers have made it plain that in the event of another Arab-Israeli war the oil weapon will be used once again. Apart from the threat to Australia’s oil imports, our security is unlikely to be directly threatened by a military conflict in the Middle East. However, increases in tension in regions such as the Middle East, where the super powers’ strategic interests are great and where their policies may conflict, tend to increase Australia’s own strategic uncertainty and insecurity. At worst there is always the possibility that a world war could originate in the Middle East.

The Committee recommends that Australia should continue to work in a sensitive way to assist movement towards a permanent and peaceful settlement. The basis of Australia’s action should be the recognition of Israel’s right to exist in security, and the encouragement of Arab initiatives to settle the displaced Palestinians. Australia should work in international forums as well as in private consultations with friendly powers to support the efforts of the United States-the most influential power in the region-to achieve a lasting Middle East peace settlement. This may require support for the resumption of United States step-by-step diplomacy, should the parties to the dispute become disenchanted with the Geneva Peace

Conference. Australia should give continued support to United Nations peace-keeping forces in the Middle East and, if requested, be prepared to enlarge its present limited contribution.

Until such time as Lebanon can build up strong enough security forces to curb Palestinian forces in southern Lebanon, Australia should support the establishment in Lebanon’s troubled southern border area of an effective international peace-keeping force to be drawn from disinterested powers. Such a force must also be of sufficient strength to curb armed incursions into and from Israel. Australia should support the implementation of limited forces zones and support the concept of great power guarantees, provided any state involved in the Arab-Israeli dispute is not forced to rely entirely on such measures for its continued existence.

Australia should continue to expand its diplomatic representation in the Middle East. To ensure that Australia can independently assess the latest military tactics and technology used in the Middle East, several Australian ambassadors should have an Australian Armed Services attache available to them. To facilitate the potential for trade, Australia should establish diplomatic relations with Libya. Australia should encourage long term productive investment in this country from the Middle East oil exporting states. Australia should attempt to make itself less dependent on Arab oil supplies to lessen the possibility of heavy unemployment- it could be as severe as an additional half a million personsshould these supplies be reduced. Australia should give urgent attention to the development of a comprehensive national energy policy that will harness other potentially abundant energy reserves apart from oil, and that will conserve our scarce oil resources until alternative energy sources can be developed. It must be regarded as a realistic policy designed to deflect from Australia some of the consequences of conflict in the Middle East, particularly the use of oil as a weapon.

Australian governments must make the Australian public aware of the need to conserve petroleum products. The only effective way to do this would be the introduction of some of the fiscal measures as canvassed in the Committee’s report. In the event that the Australian Government makes allowance for the unpredictable Middle East oil situation by supporting a progressive increase in domestic crude prices in order to save a scarce resource, then a significant proportion of higher royalties should be allocated to the following: Firstly, to giving tax incentives for further exploration; secondly, to the development of alternative energy sources; thirdly, to increasing storage capacity for the types of crudes normally imported; and, fourthly, to the encouragement for research and development of suitable technology for the extraction of a higher proportion of crude oil from Australia ‘s existing fields.

The federal tax of over 9c a gallon on liquefied petroleum gas raises little revenue; it should be removed to encourage the replacement of motor spirit. Serious consideration should be given to increasing the use of relatively abundant LPG by subsidising the costs of conversion. Subsidies could be given direct to the manufactures of engines suitable for LPG. Australia should progressively increase mandatory stock holdings of crude oil and derived products to 90 days reserve by 1981. Priority in the meantime should be given to improving stock holdings related to the defence capacity of Australia. Both Commonwealth and State governments should have at all times in advanced preparation the necessary legislation to implement the conservation of scarce energy products. Early priority should be given to the amendment of the Liquid Fuels (Defence Stocks) Act.

We do not always appreciate the sense of impending disaster which governs thinking and policy in Israel, but the atmosphere is well conveyed by the notable Jewish writer Saul Bellow in his book To Jerusalem and Back, and 2 quotations from his book will suffice. Writing of conversation at a social occasion in Jerusalem he notes:

The subject of all this talk is ultimately survival . . . At first it is hard to grasp this because the setting is so civilised . . . Here you sit at dinner with charming people in a dining room like any other. Yet you know that your hostess has lost a son; that her sister lost children in the 1973 war; that in this Jerusalem street, coolly sweet with night flowers and dark green under the lamps, many other families have lost children … In the domestic ceremony of passed dishes and filled glasses thoughts of a destructive enemy are hard to grasp. What you do know is there is one fact of Jewish life unchanged by the creation of a Jewish State; you cannot take your right to live for granted . . . The Jews, because they are Jews, have never been able to take the right to live as a natural right.

Even more starkly Bellow writes:

And what is it that has led the Jews to place themselves, after the greatest disaster in their history, in a danger zone? A Jewish professor at Harvard recently said to me ‘wouldn’t it be the most horrible of ironies if the Jews had collected themselves conveniently in one country for a second Holocaust?’

None can assess exactly the effect on the Likud Party, the core of a new government in Israel, of the moderating experience of office, but it is fair to say that its utterances are more militant than those of its defeated predecessors and in the longer term the likelihood of a renewed clash in the Middle East seems to have increased. I take this opportunity of thanking all those who contributed to the work of the Committee.

Motion ( by Mr Adermann ) proposed:

That the House take note of the report.

Mr Cohen:

– Can we have the assurance of the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) or the Government that this report will be debated during the Budget session? Reports are often presented and debate on them is shelved. We have never had a full scale debate or discussion on the Middle East in the 8 years that I have been a member of this place. I would hope that a certain amount of time will be set aside for a debate on this report. I commend the Committee for the excellence of the report. I have not had a chance to study it. However, I would like to get that assurance from the Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)There is one difficulty: The honourable member for Robertson could be regarded as having made a speech on the motion if he spoke for too fong.

Mr Cohen:

– I was only asking a question.

Mr Adermann:

– I think that the adjournment of the debate is to be taken with that purpose in mind. I will clear the honourable member’s request with the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair).

Debate (on motion by Mr Fife) adjourned.

page 2415

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

-On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present an interim report on ‘Industrial Support for Defence Needs and Allied Matters’.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr HAMER:

– by leave- The report on Australian defence industries is the result of what, I am sure, is the most thorough investigation of the subject ever undertaken by a parliamentary committee. Practically every plant or establishment of defence industrial significance was visited by the sub-committee. I should like to pay tribute to my colleagues on the sub-committee, the honourable members for Ballaarat (Mr Short) and St George (Mr Neil) on this side of the House and the honourable members for Prospect (Dr Klugman), Wills (Mr Bryant) and Chifley (Mr Armitage) on the Opposition side and Senator Bishop from the Senate. We all, I am sure, wish to express our gratitude to the subcommittee staff- Malcolm Hills, Dan Barton, and our special adviser Ian Fleming. Our debt to them is immense.

In considering the requirements for defence industry, it is necessary to decide first the scale and warning time of any possible conflicts and whether overseas supplies would be available during such conflicts. The Committee has made its assumptions-for they must be assumptions; no one can prove or disprove them- as plain as possible. In one regard we have gone further than the last defence White Paper would suggest. We have considered what might happen if Australia were thrown back on her own resources, as nearly happened in 1942 and might happen again. We believe the Australian public should be aware of the gaps that would exist in such circumstances, for such awareness is an important step towards the exercise of balanced judgment and the initiation of reasoned actions while there is time to do so in an orderly manner.

The report deals with some general issues applicable to all defence industries and then concentrates on 4 key defence industries- shipbuilding, aerospace, electronics and munitions. The electronics section of the report is not yet quite completed and it, together with a summary of conclusions, will be tabled in the Budget session and a request will then be made to print the whole report. I am concerned at many of the deficiencies revealed. We could not, for instance, build a combat aircraft in Australia from our own resources. We could not fit out a modern warship from our own resources. Our technological gap is probably worse now than it was in 1 939. The gap is not narrowing; it is widening.

The Committee has made many recommendations in order to widen our defence technological base. Some recommendations involve changes in policies pursued by successive governments; others suggest effective implementation of policies to which in the past mere lip service has been paid. The report is unanimous, except for the highly contentious subject of merchant shipbuilding on some aspects of which 2 members dissented. I hope that this report will be of value to Australian defence and I commend it to the House.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-by leave-I also would like to pay respect to the other members of the sub-committee One could only say that the report was not only exhaustive but that it was also exhausting. The sub-committee was involved in a great deal of work and travelled the length and breadth of Australia. We had innumerable meetings which took up a great deal of time. I think that every member of the sub-committee gave everything he possibly could to it. I particularly pay respect to the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) who was Chairman of the sub-committee and, of course, to the other members of the subcommittee. I submit that the report ought to be known as the Hamer report. I believe this would be an appropriate name for it. Without a doubt he carried out his duties as chairman of the subcommittee with what I can only call very great application. I also pay respect to the research staff who helped us, namely, Ian Fleming, Malcolm Hills, Dan Barton and Annette Quinn and, of course, our stenographic staff who, once again, did a wonderful and exhausting job.

The only dissent was expressed by the honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Short) and one can understand that. He originally came from the Department of Treasury and naturally he would tend to express the same attitude as that from his environment in the Treasury. I am not making this personal; I make that quite clear. I have often said that Treasury has far too much influence on the Parliament. Nevertheless, the honourable member without a doubt sincerely believes in his attitude. He has based that attitude on paragraph 7.70. Incidentally, the last part of that paragraph was inserted by him. He believes in the approach he took on the shipbuilding industry and one must give him full credit for that. I mention the shipbuilding industry in which I took interest myself. I hope the Government will take note of the report and its recommendations for an inquiry to maintain the commercial shipbuilding industry, particularly the dockyards at Whyalla and Newcastle.

We carried out exhaustive inquiries. It was not something taken off the top of the head. We went into it with great depth. I make the point that our recommendations were unanimous, with the exception of one dissenting vote, on that subcommittee. In other words, people from both sides of the House appreciated the need to maintain this industry. Finally, I pay full respect to and thank the other members of the subcommittee for the exhausting job which they did. It was a good sub-committee. We got to know one another very well and to understand one another’s view points very well. I commend the report to the House. In doing so I suggest that the appropriate name for it would be the Hamer Report.

Mr NEIL:
St George

-by leave-The report from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is one of the most important documents ever tabled in Parliament. It represents the most exhaustive, detailed and comprehensive independent investigation into defence industry in Australia since the Second World War. The recommendations are clear and capable of implementation. If implemented by the Government they will give real substance to the present shadowy claim that industry is the fourth arm of defence. I sincerely hope that there will be a full debate on this report in the Parliament and in the community. Although this is a committee document, in the main it is specific. It is a responsible document and where necessary it does not pull punches. It points out that the Committee is greatly concerned by the failure of the Department of Defence to have more of its equipment developed in Australia. Honourable members, the Government and the nation should carefully read the proposals for the shipbuilding, aerospace and other industries. A supplementary report on the vital electronics industry will be available shortly. I pay tribute to the staff who have assisted. The work of this Committee should also give heart to the public in that members of both major Parties have closely cooperated over many hours, days and months. Political rhetoric has been buried. Except for minor dissents all differences have been resolved in a real attempt to produce a substantial contribution to the national interest and to the future security of Australia.

page 2417

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURE

Mr GARLAND:
Curtin

-On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure I present the report on Australia’s overseas representation.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Mr GARLAND:

-by leave-The Committee’s inquiry into Australia’s overseas representation has concentrated on the appropriateness of staff numbers which, directly and indirectly, determine most costs in this field. The principal conclusion arising from the inquiry is that there is a need for more effective on-going systems of control over Australia’s representation overseas. In the last 2 years dramatic reductions have been made in the staffing of departments with major responsibilities overseas. Yet they are still performing their functions without serious impairment. The Committee is recommending a system of biennial reviews by government of the whole field of overseas representation. They would be based on submissions by the relevant departments and by the central regulatory authorities. The reviews would enable government to determine the total volume of resources it is prepared to allocate to this area in light of competing demands on the limited available resources and bring greater discipline to departmental thinking on the use of their resources. The first review should take place in about February 1978.

The Committee also makes specific recommendations aimed at improving departments’ capacity to keep under regular and effective scrutiny their allocation of resources overseas, notably more frequent inspections of posts by senior officers and improved reporting on management matters. The measures proposed are not a panacea. They are an aid to, not a substitute for, discipline on the part of departments and central authorities in constantly examining priorities and the elaborateness of their operations. It must always be borne in mind by governments and by departments that the average cost of having an Australia-based officer on an overseas posting now exceeds $70,000 per annum and in individual cases exceeds $100,000 per annum.

The evidence collected by the Committee suggests that, as a result of the recent thoroughgoing reviews of staffing overseas, the numbers of staff now accord with essential workloads in the great majority of cases. The Committee is disturbed, however, by the size of the Australian High Commission in London despite major staff reductions in recent years. The Committee recommends that locally-engaged staff in London be reduced to 500, that is, by over 100. Other staff reductions recommended in the report would result in a minimum net reduction of 1 9 Australia-based officers and at least a further 50 locally engaged staff. Some of these reductions would be effected by the closure of posts in Rio de Janeiro, Karachi, Port-of-Spain and Christchurch. Others would result from withdrawal of representatives of the Commonwealth Scientific, Industrial and Research Organisation, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Departments of Education, Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs.

The Committee also recommends detailed examinations to determine, firstly, whether Australiabased staff at 8 Immigration posts should be withdrawn and the posts covered by a system of regional representation and, secondly, whether 25 positions at Trade Commissioner posts are justified by the essential workload at the posts. The Committee expects further reductions in staff to result from these examinations. The report places some emphasis on the need for Heads of Mission to be given greater delegated authority in administrative and financial matters. Officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, in particular, should be given a wide range of experience inside and outside of the Department to ensure that those who become Heads of Mission are equipped to handle administrative responsibilities capably. I point out that the words former’ and ‘latter’ in recommendation 17 have been incorrectly transposed. I commend the report to the House.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-by leave-Before making my comments, I wonder whether the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) will consider moving a motion that the House take note of the report. This is no criticism of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Expenditure but it has occurred to me that the Committee was set up substantially to oversight expenditure by the Public Service and the Executive. It has been ordered that the report be printed but without such a motion the House will not be given the opportunity to examine and debate the recommendations in the report, if it should so desire. I offer that comment. I will not refer to the specific recommendations because the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland), has already done so. Incidentally, the incorrect recommendation was No. 19, and I think honourable members will understand, when reading the mass of words, how easy it is to transpose terms.

The Committee is trying to design methods to examine expenditure, and a lot of the exercise, which involved tedious, painstaking work, related to the designing of methods and trying to adopt an objective approach. I think that members of the sub-committee will agree that some subjects do not allow total objectivity, and this field is one of them. Such things as deciding whether cuts in staff allow satisfactory service when there are different assessments of satisfactory service become subjective matters. There is also the political sensitivity of certain geographical areas, as well as certain areas of government policy. This morning a report from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Middle East was presented. If I heard correctly, the Committee recommended an increase in overseas representation, obviously on quite valid grounds. Some of the reasons for our overseas representation may not be related to a direct return to Australia. They may be political reasons or involve the question of the status overseas which Australia wants to maintain. They may be related to a show of strength in terms of numbers to preserve good relationships. One of the recommendations in the report related to postings overseas of Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation representatives, and here we had some difficulty.

It would seem that their functions could be carried out by short visits, but it may be that Australia’s international scientific status would be affected by their withdrawal. Once again, we have the question of a subjective assessment.

In addition to the plea that, we adopt a routine for such reports from the Expenditure Committeewe have a motion that the House take note of the report- we should ensure that the House has the opportunity to debate a report which it wants to debate. The experience of the Committee in conducting its inquiries illustrates once again the inadequacy of the arrangements of the committee system of the House in regard to the way in which the committees are organised and the opportunities available for sittings of committees. I make that point in order to urge the Government to give serious consideration to allowing a parliamentary debate on the report of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System so that the functioning of the committee system may be brought into line with what is necessary modern practice. In that way, committees such as the Expenditure Committee, which involves quite a large amount of time, would be able to deal with their reports more effectively.

page 2418

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-I present the thirteenth report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

Mr HODGES:

-by leave-The Joint Committee on Publications has asked me to draw to the attention of the House the unsatisfactory arrangement whereby only 9 copies of the report of the Australian Assistance Plan, which was tabled in the House this morning, have been made available to the Parliament for distribution to members. The Committee regards such an arrangement as totally unsatisfactory because it makes it extremely difficult for interested members to have access to the report. The Committee has asked that I draw to the attention of all Ministers and departments the need to ensure that adequate copies of all reports to be tabled are made available for all senators and members. Clear guidelines are set down as to the format to be adopted for the preparation and printing of publications. Additionally, 330 copies are to be provided to the Parliament for distribution to senators and members, to the Press, to research officers, to the Bills and Papers Office, and to other interested people in and around the Parliament. Frequently the Parliament is supplied with only a few copies of very important reports which are much sought after. I have instanced the example of the Australian Assistance Plan report merely to highlight the problem. Indeed, that report is dated March 1976, which means that we have added insult to injury in this case because the report has been available for some 1 5 months. Many other departments are guilty of not fulfilling this important requirement. The secretary of the Publications Committee has provided me with a list of reports tabled in the Parliament where less than 20 copies were made available to the Senate records and papers office for the period June to December 1976. I seek leave to incorporate this list in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

REPORTS TABLED IN THE PARLIAMENT WHERE LESS THAN 20 COPIES WERE MADE AVAILABLE TO SENATE RECORDS AND PAPERS OFFICE JUNE-DECEMBER 1976

Air Safety Investigation Branch Accident Investigation Report (1 copy).

Commonwealth Grants Commission: Financial assistance for local government; 3rd report 1976 (10 copies).

Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund: monthly reports, February 1976; March 1976; April 1976; May 1976; June 1976 (includes review of activities 1975-76) (10 copies).

Darwin Disaster Welfare Council: final report (5 copies).

Distribution of Commonwealth funds to municipal councils; Western Australia 1976-77 (3 copies).

Election Statistics- Senate Election and General Election of Members of the House of Representatives, 13 December 1975: Australian Capital Territory/Northern Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia ( 10 copies).

Grants to local authorities: Queensland 1976-77 (3 copies). “Indications of community well-being: a report to the Department of Social Security, (4 copies).

Interim States Grants Commission: local assistance for local government: South Australia 1976-77, (3 copies).

Katherine Rural College Planning Committee: report April 1976, (10 copies).

Literacy and numeracy in Australian schools, (nil copies).

Local Government Grants Commission: financial assistance for local government: New South Wales 1976-77, (3 copies).

Post-Graduate scheme: a report on the scheme with particular reference to students commencing in 1965 and 1966 (10 copies).

Poverty, Commission of Inquiry into. 3rd main report, March 1976 (5 copies).

The Role of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, Committee of Inquiry into. Report, November 1976 (2 copies).

River Murray Commission; annual report 1975 (5 copies).

Schedules of special nights for the period 15 July-31 August 1976 ( 10 copies).

States Grants Committee: distribution of general revenue assistance to municipal councils; Victoria 1 976-77 ( 3 copies ).

Tasmanian States Grants Commission: 1st report 1976-77 (2 copies).

War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunals Nos. 1-5 for 1975-76(nil copies).

Full stocks were supplied at a later date.

Mr HODGES:

-That list of some 20 publications shows the numbers of copies which were made available, and in every instance the figure was less than 20. If departments do not provide the necessary copies to the Parliament costs will be increased. The Committee expressed its deep concern at the inaccessability of information for members and senators, research officers, etc. I trust that departments, statutory authorities and Ministers will take heed of this criticism and that in the future we may be able to eliminate this quite serious problem. I thank the House.

page 2419

INCOME TAX (ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE STATES) BILL 1977

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

Second Reading

Mr LYNCH:
Treasurer · Flinders · LP

– I move:

The broad purpose of this Bill is to enable each State, if it so chooses, to legislate to increase its revenue from personal income tax or to give- at a cost to the State- a rebate on personal income tax to residents in the State. This Bill completes the legislative framework of the tax sharing arrangements which are a central element of the Government’s federalism policy- a policy aimed at restoring a proper distribution of powers and functions between the Federal, State and local spheres of government. I stress, at the outset, that the legislation I now introduce fulfils a fundamental policy commitment put by the Liberal and National Country Parties to the Australian community and overwhelmingly endorsed at the December 1975 election. It responds also to the arguments of Premiers over the years that they should have available to themselves a wider armoury of taxes to ensure greater flexibility in their untied revenues.

Stage 1 of the income tax sharing arrangements established in legislation passed last year provided for the States to receive 33.6 per cent of personal income tax collections. Those arrangements replaced the old financial assistance grants formula. They will have provided the States with untied funds at levels significantly higher than they would have received under the old arrangements. Just as importantly, those arrangements have replaced the old system of handouts with one in which the concept is the sharing of tax revenues. Under the present Government, the States have received what they have been seeking for many years- a share of the income tax revenues. Stage 1 of the tax sharing arrangements is an important step towards more responsible government in Australia and the restoration of a proper balance in our federal system.

The present Bill will enable the implementation of stage 2 of the tax sharing arrangements, and thus represents a further major step towards this objective. Under these proposed stage 2 arrangements each State will be able to vary, by its own decision, its total share of income tax collections. The States thus will have effective control of their own revenues as well as their expenditures and will, as a consequence, be able to establish their own priorities. Because responsibilities for revenue raising and spending will be more clearly recognised by the electors, there will be a greater incentive towards better housekeeping. The implications of tax sharing were well summed up by the Premier of Western Australia in the following words:

In returning to this Parliament its right to a share of income tax collections, the Federal Government has also restored to us a far greater degree of financial responsibility.

Western Australia is now entitled to 4 per cent of the national collection of personal income tax and the Government must live with the ups and downs in those collections as we were required to do in the years when the State levied its own income tax.

This will require the acceptance of new attitudes to budgeting, recognising that variations in revenue from year to year are likely to be more marked than before, and an even greater emphasis on sound financial management practices.

This is the price one has to pay, because with rights go responsibilities, and I for one would have it no other way.

A broad framework for stage 2 of the tax sharing arrangements-the subject of the present Billwas evolved and agreed during the 3 Premiers Conferences last year and recorded in the points of understanding set out in Budget Paper No. 7. The stage 2 arrangements have also been the subject of joint Commonwealth- State officers’ reports, including a report which was considered at the Premiers Conference in April 1977.

At that conference there was broad agreement on the following objectives which have been followed in the draft Bill: Firstly, there should be complete uniformity as between the States in all respects other than rates of any surcharges or rebates; secondly, the arrangements should be free of any significant constitutional or other legal doubt; thirdly, the scheme should be as simple and inexpensive to administer as practicable, consistent with legal requirements and the other broad objectives being followed; fourthly, the arrangements should impose the least inconvenience practicable on taxpayers and employers; and fifthly, the arrangements should be such as to avoid creating avenues for tax avoidance or evasion. It was also agreed at the April Premiers Conference that Commonwealth officers would consult with officers of Victoria and Western Australia regarding the Commonwealth ‘s stage 2 legislation, and I record the Commonwealth’s appreciation of the cooperation of the States.

This Bill ranks as a significant further legislative step in the field of Commonwealth-State relations. It restores the States powers and responsibilities which are properly theirs. Because of its importance and complexity, the Government does not seek passage of the Bill during the present sittings. The Bill is introduced now to allow time for reflection and informed debate and, in particular, for consideration by the State governments.

Before turning to the detailed provisions of the Bill I wish to deal with the constant assertions of our political opponents that the stage 2 arrangements amount to some form of ‘double taxation’.

Mr Hurford:

– Hear, hear!

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable gentleman is very interested in taxation. There is a rumour in the Press that his present jurisdiction is to be curtailed to that of looking after tax arrangements on behalf of the Opposition.

Mr Hurford:

– Don’t believe the rumour.

Mr LYNCH:

– I will be very interested to see how the economic responsibilities of the Opposition Party in this House are subject to division among the honourable gentleman, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), and Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) and even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) himself.

Mr Hurford:

– You will not have long to wait. If anybody needs help, it is you.

Mr LYNCH:

– If I wanted any help in running the Australian economy, I think the honourable gentleman would be the last person from whom I would seek it. I do not want to be unkindmaybe I am gettin a little testy in the last hours of this session- but I make that low profile, friendly comment to my colleague on the other side of the House.

The first point to be made in relation to the charge of ‘double taxation’ is, of course, that this legislation puts no compulsion on the States. It merely provides the framework to enable the States, as they may choose, to pick up taxing or rebating options. Only when a State chooses to impose a tax or allow a rebate, and legislates accordingly, will this legislation be brought into use. Some Premiers, as is well known, have urged the Commonwealth to reduce income tax. I must say, with a wry smile, that the enactment of this legislation will allow those Premiers to reduce income tax in their States. The second important point to be made is that, under this legislation, there will at all times remain one collection and administrative agency. Taxpayers resident in any State will still lodge one annual return of income with the Commissioner of Taxation and will receive a single notice of assessment on which Commonwealth and State components will be shown. There will be a single PA YE deduction from salaries and wages for Commonwealth and State purposes. In plain terms, there will be no additional forms to fill in. Thirdly, the States traditionally levy a wide range of taxes and charges. There is nothing new in identifying a tax as a particular State tax. The transfer of payroll tax to the States is an example.

I turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. It has 4 major parts. One part gives authority for the Commissioner of Taxation to administer State tax and rebate laws that meet certain specifications set out in another part of the Bill and provides for payment to the States of what is collected by the Commonwealth on their behalf. It also deals with a number of miscellaneous matters. The other 2 main parts contain technical and machinery amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act and other Acts. The first of these 4 parts calls for some comment. In drawing it up we have worked within the framework of principles agreed at successive Premiers Conferences and have consulted with those States- Victoria and Western Australia- that have wished to be associated with the framing of what is essentially enabling legislation. That is, this fundamental part of the Bill is something about which we believe we have the States’ basic agreement.

In essence, the first part of the Bill is directed to ensuring that the objectives of uniform administration are practical and met. For example, it would be expected that each State increase or reduce tax only in respect of people who are residents of that State, according to a common definition of ‘resident’. In that way, no-one would be liable to tax in more than one State in any one year. Again, in the interests of simplicity, a State that wishes to impose a tax or allow a rebate will need to legislate in such a way that the State law can operate in harmony with the Commonwealth income tax law. As a consequence, State tax would be collected through the PA YE and provisional tax systems that are now a settled part of the Commonwealth personal tax system.

Tax owing to the Commonwealth and to a State will be collected by the Commonwealth as a single, undivided, sum, with the State being paid its share of what is collected. It is because Commonwealth and State tax will be collected in this ‘ merged ‘ way that it is necessary, as set out in clause 76, for an appropriation to be made to enable payment to the States of amounts collected by virtue of State law.

Finally, the magnitude of the activities of Federal, State and local governments should be put in true perspective. In the current financial year State and local governments will have under their supervision no less than 52 per cent of total public sector outlays in Australia. The percentage break-up is: Federal 48 per cent; State 46 per cent; local, 6 per cent. It is vital to the full understanding of intergovernment relations to appreciate the very significant role of State and local government in public finances. The idea that these 2 spheres are small and insignificant in the overall economic and social scene is a basic misconception. The detailed provisions of the Bill are fully explained in a memorandum that will be circulated to honourable members. The Bill is a very significant move forward towards the completion of our federalism arrangements with the States. I am sure that it has the support at least of all honourable members on this side of the House, and I commend it to the House.

Mr Hurford:

– I am fortunate to be in the chamber because the introduction of this Bill was not listed on the blue sheet and my office was not informed of it.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hurford) adjourned.

page 2421

CONSTRUCTION OF AN ANALYTICAL LABORATORY AT PYMBLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– I move:

The proposal is for the construction of a new laboratory complex to accommodate the scientific, administrative and support activities of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratory in New South Wales. The complex will consist of 4 elements: Chemical analysis and physical testing; bacteriological testing; administration; and site services and support activities. The tasks of the laboratory include testing of goods and materials for import, export and domestic use.

The building will be constructed with reinforced concrete frames and brick infill walls covered with an applied textured coloured finish. The building will be designed to harmonise with the generally residential nature of the area. The complex will be airconditioned throughout and outfitted internally in materials suitable to the laboratory-type activities. The estimated cost of the proposal at 13 May 1977 prices is $6.8m. I table plans of the proposed work.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2422

DEVELOPMENT OF ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE EDINBURGH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– I move:

The development has been necessitated by the proposal to locate additional aircraft at the base and by the existing unsatisfactory living and working accommodation. The majority of the existing living and working accommodation is in old converted factory buildings and technical facilities are accommodated in temporary buildings. The development includes the provision of new buildings, modifications and additions to existing buildings and all associated engineering services to provide living and working accommodation for No. 92 Wing including No. 10 and 1 1 Squadrons and the No. 492 Maintenance Squadron, and the Aircraft Research and Development Unit recently moved from Laverton, Victoria, to Edinburgh. Other support facilities including physical fitness centre, running transport section and barracks tradesmen’s workshop will service all RAAF personnel at the base. Provision of extensive aircraft pavements and taxiways together with associated airfield drainage and lighting is also proposed.

A complete fire detection and protection system will be provided where necessary and an additional water reticulation service to supplement the existing service and ensure adequate supply in the event of fire is also planned. A central emergency power house will be provided to conform to the standards and requirements for power supplies on RAAF bases in the event of power failure. The estimated cost of the works at April 1977 prices is $ 17.4m. I table plans of the proposed works.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2422

DEVELOPMENT OF ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE, POINT COOK, VICTORIA

Approval of Work- Public Works Committee Act

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– I move:

The proposal is for 2 elements of the overall development at the base. They are the construction of sleeping accommodation for 96 air men consisting of 6 two-storey brick buildings, replacing traditional institutionalised barracks accommodation with flat type accommodation; and the provision of facilities for the No. 1 Flying Training School comprising the headquarters building, flight line building and the maintenance squadron headquarters and workshop. The Committee recommends the construction of the work as referred to it. Upon the concurrence of the house in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2422

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL AT KATHERINE SOUTH, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Approval of Work- Public Works Committee Act

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Construction · Boothby · LP

– I move:

The proposal is for the construction of a primary school designed to accommodate 360 students. The proposal now submitted differs from that previously considered by the Committee in February, 1977 in that the capacity of the school has been reduced from 480 to 360 students with a proportional reduction in the size of the buildings, and the pre-school has been omitted. Katherine South Primary School is intended to be the first school built using the new system of construction developed by the Departments of Construction and Education during 1976. This system was designed to reduce design, documentation and construction costs and time.

The school will comprise, each housed in a separate building, one 120 student learning area, one 240 student learning area, library, administration and multi-purpose area. The estimated cost of the revised proposal is $ 1.82m at April 1977 prices. The Committee, in recommending the construction of these works, concluded that the departments should monitor enrolments closely and document the project to allow deletion of the 120 student learning unit from the contract if enrolments do not increase as expected. The Departments of Construction and Education will comply with this recommendation in the further design of the school. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– This was a very difficult hearing for the Public Works Committee. The hearing was adjourned at Katherine and resumed in Canberra in order that the Department could present more information. Honourable members will see that the cost now is $ 1.82m. When the matter was referred to the Committee the cost was higher than $2m, as is required by the Act. The hearing highlighted the need to monitor movements of people in this area by way of estimates of population from time to time, and the Department after checking all sources available to it came back to the Committee and said that some errors, some over-estimation of future populations had been made. The Committee put to the Department that perhaps it would be desirable to reduce the size of this school.

The Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) mentioned that this is the first school to be built under a very practical system of almost modular construction. It made the deletion of the not required section of the school rather easy and at the same time it makes the addition of it at a future time, if necessary, just as easy. At the same time, it makes the addition to it at a future time, if required, just as easy. It was a sensible solution to a difficult problem. One paragraph of the report recommends that the shower and change blocks be retained. I shall elaborate on that for the benefit of honourable members. There is a shower and toilet block at this school. It is not the first one in the Northern Territory. After the Committee had asked for and received information from knowledgeable people on the climatic conditions in the Northern Territory, it was felt that, in that area, it is not a luxury to have the facilities for children to be able to shower, especially after playing sport. Katherine is one place in Australia which is regarded by those expert in climatic matters as a very difficult place to live. Shower facilities were not regarded by the Committee as a luxury but as an essential.

Sitting suspended from 1.2 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr CALDER (Northern Territory) (2.1 SiMr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion for the approval of work on the school at Katherine South. I note that the proposal is for a new type of modular design which will be of tremendous advantage in the Northern Territory because it will allow a similar school to be built without extra cost and design time. One hopes that there will be some advantage in reducing the cost of producing this type of school in other parts of the Northern Territory. I commend the decision, which has been taken in conformity with the wishes of the people of Katherine that the Clyde Fenton school, which was originally envisaged to handle the situation, is to be built later to accommodate 400 children, instead of these 2 schools being combined with a school population of 800. This was considered by the parents and citizens of Katherine to be of an unwieldy size and to the disadvantage of the pupils concerned. I express pleasure at the speed with which this decision has been made. I compliment the members of the Public Works Committee and also the -

Mr Kelly:

– Minister.

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Yes, thank you very much. I was going to compliment the Department of Construction and the Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) for soldiering this project through with such expedition. While I am on my feet commending the proposal for the building of the school I point out that the pupils attending the Katherine South school have been educated in a quickly assembled demountable building. Prior to using this building they were taught in an open, unlined, corrugated iron building which was used as a display at Katherine showground. So this school building will be welcomed. I only hope that the work goes ahead quickly so that the hard conditions being experienced in this tropical and rigorous climate are overcome as quickly as possible. I note that the school is to be built in a position where the pupils will be able to use the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation oval which is used quite a lot in Katherine for cricket and, I take it, football as well. I have played on that oval on several occasions.

Mr Kelly:

-Hear, hear! And distinguished yourself too.

Mr CALDER:

-Not all the time. I commend the work and the speed with which it has been put through. I hope that the buildings go up with equal celerity.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2424

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1976-77. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1976-77.

page 2424

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Stevedoring Industry Charge Amendment Bill as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The 2 measures before the House are temporary measures or extensions of temporary arrangements that have now been in existence for some considerable time. The first Bill, the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Amendment Bill, simply extends the time of the application of the Provisions of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act from 1 July 1977 to 1 January 1978. The second Bill extends the duration of the charges to bring them into line with that period. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) in his second reading speech explained the necessity for these Bills. He explained that the Government intends in the spring session to bring in substantive legislation to deal with the difficulties associated with the stevedoring industry in Australia.

During the course of his speech the Minister used a curious expression twice. He spoke about a report by the Chairman of the National Stevedoring Industry Conference, Sir Richard Kirby, and he simply said: ‘The report will now be available publicly’. He said the same thing about a report by Mr Neil Stevens. I am rather intrigued as to why the Minister did not table the reports. It is essential that members of my Party have access to those reports, because when the Minister and the Government bring in substantive legislation in the spring session we would like to have had the advantage of studying the report during the winter recess to make ourselves familiar with it and to confer with the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and other waterfront unions- I understand that there is already agreement on it- on the basis of the report. Naturally we would like to make ourselves familiar with that report so that when the amending legislation, which I believe will be very substantive, is introduced in the Budget session we will be familiar with the report.

I understand that there is in the view of the Minister and the Government a need to have the legislation passed through the House as quickly as possible in the August session. If we are able to hold our conversations and carry out our deliberations when the House is not meeting, the Minister will find that the Opposition is better equipped to assist him to get the legislation through the House as quickly as possible provided, of course, that it meets with our agreement. We have no opposition at all to the legislation that is before the House. We will do nothing either in this place or in another place to obstruct it. It is something that must be done today or not done at all as the present legislation expires on 30 June. Therefore the Opposition does not oppose these measures but may not adopt the same attitude when the substantive legislation comes before this House in August.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

-in reply- I can assure the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson ) that the 2 reports that he referred to will be made available to him. There is a shortage of the reports but I am sure we will find enough for the use of his committee. If he will let me know the numbers he requires I shall see that he gets them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2425

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 1 June, on motion by Mr Street:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2425

TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr HOWARD (Bennelong-Minister for

Business and Consumer Affairs) (2.25 )- I move:

The Proposals I have just tabled relate to changes to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The changes implement the Government’s decisions on recommendations made by the Temporary Assistance Authority in its report on umbrellas and the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on orange juice.

The decision on umbrellas means an additional temporary duty of 57c each applies to umbrella imports. The new rates operate from tomorrow. The effect of the decision on orange juice means that import quota restrictions will cease on 30 June 1 977. A 65 per cent rate of duty will apply for a further 12 months pending completion of the Commission’s inquiry into the long term needs of the citrus industry. A comprehensive summary of the changes contained in the Proposals is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the proposals to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Keith Johnson) adjourned.

page 2425

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Howard) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 16 August next, at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker or, in the absence from Australia of Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House, fix an alternative day of meeting.

page 2425

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Howard) agreed to:

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

page 2425

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 24 May, on the motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr HOWARD:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Bennelong · LP

- Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this matter. Before the debate is resumed on this Order of the Day, I should like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this motion and Orders of the Day Nos. 4 and 5, Government Business, as they are associated with the same subject. I suggest, therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you permit the subject matters of the 3 Orders of the Day to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 3 matters?

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, before agreeing to this course, the Opposition wants to make it clear that we will agree to a general debate but we are not prepared to accept that the second Fox Commission debate, as promised before a decision would be made, is included as part of this debate. I think it would be unreasonable that it not be referred to. But there was an undertaking by the Government that no firm decision on the export and mining of uranium would be made until the full debate had taken place in this Parliament on the second Fox report. The Opposition wants it made clear that in agreeing to allow the matter to be referred to, which is what this motion does, we are not acknowledging that a full debate has taken place in this Parliament on that report because it is not the substantiative motion which will be before the Parliament during this debate.

Mr HOWARD:

-I respond by saying that the Government notes the remarks made by the honourable member for Corio.

Mr Uren:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, may I say that in fact the actual matter before the House is the ministerial statement on the Government’s policy on nuclear safeguards.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I point out to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has made a suggestion that Orders of the Day Nos. 3, 4 and 5 be the subject of a cognate debate. The Chair’s position is that if there is agreement to that suggestion the Chair will allow that course to be followed. It seems from what has been said by the honourable member for Corio and by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that there is considerable doubt as to whether there is agreement.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, the other point I should like to make -

Mr Howard:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have made a suggestion and the honourable member for Corio, as I understood him, agreed with the suggestion, but whilst agreeing with the suggestion he took the opportunity to put a point of view. I responded by saying that the Government noted the expression of the point of view of the honourable member for Corio. I respectfully suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, that further canvassing of whether or not the suggestion is acceded to is quite unnecessary. If the Opposition does not accede to the suggestion the Government may have to revise its position on the suggestion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister is now going beyond the point of order. I would point out that that was exactly the point I was making. We cannot have a debate on this issue if there is not agreement. The Chair cannot agree to that course being followed. The Government, if it wishes, has to take further action.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask you to have patience because, after all, there were discussions between the Manager of Opposition Business in this House and the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair). I have prepared my statement on the matter before the House, that is, the ministerial statement on nuclear safeguards.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I must bring the House to order. The question is whether the House agrees to a cognate debate. That is not a matter for debate. If there is further dissention all I can say is that the House will not permit that course to be followed.

Mr Uren:

– There are other points involved, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I realise that and I point out to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Chair has to try to conduct the House in accordance with the rules and the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders do not allow debate on this particular question.

Mr Uren:

– Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, the situation is that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), when notifying the Parliament, said that the second report of the Ranger inquiry would not be discussed until the House met in August.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! As I pointed out to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the question before the House is whether the House agrees to a general debate. I want an answer to that question or I shall have to rule that that course cannot be followed.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a further point of order. The Leader of the House, who is not present in the chamber, has given an undertaking that the second Fox report will be debated in the August session. The point I am making is that we are not prepared to accept that this is the debate the Government has promised. If the Minister gives us the same undertaking, that that matter will be debated fully in the Budget session, I take it that the decision on that matter will follow that debate.

Mr Anthony:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to give an assurance to the House that the second Fox report will remain on the notice paper for further debate in the spring session.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I think that solves the problem. I take it that the House now agrees to a cognate debate. There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I will be confining my remarks to the ministerial statement about the nuclear safeguards policy. Because the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said earlier in the life of this Parliament that there would be a wide ranging debate on the second report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry during the Budget session, I prepared myself only for a speech on the ministerial statement about the nuclear safeguards policy.

The nuclear safeguards policy has been forced on the Government by 2 factors. The first is a rather hasty effort to get into step with the modifications to the policy of the United States of America that were announced recently by President Carter. The Government wanted some semblance of a safeguards policy, no matter how lacking it was in sense or logic, before the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington this month. The second is to bolster the Government’s case for an early acceptance of the need to go ahead with uranium mining and export before the full implications of the Fox report sink in with the Australian people. Past coalition governments have approved export contracts for uranium without showing the slightest interest in safeguards. The motives behind this latest ploy are all too obvious. The Prime Minister in effect was forced to devise a safeguards policy before the Fox report was released. It does not seem to have occurred to the Prime Minister that his announcing of a safeguards policy was prejudging the issue. This makes a mockery of the Fox Committee’s call for a full debate on the many complex issues involved in its reports.

In the Press at the weekend Professor Kerr, a member of the Fox Committee, referred in scathing terms to the pathetic nature of the parliamentary debate permitted by the Fraser Government. He reinforced the point that I have made several times in this House, that is, that an hour or two allotted to parliamentary debate of the 2 Fox reports is no substitute for full and sustained public participation. There will be a further debate of the second Fox report in the Budget session, as I said earlier, and, if I may say so, it will be a further waste of time. In the intervening months the Government will continue by stealth with the preparations for the export of the uranium. The miners and the mining companies will gear up as rapidly as they can for an early start to getting uranium out of the ground and out of the country. It would have been more honest for the Government to get the sham debate out of the way and announce that it was going to have the full debate this week.

The safeguards put by the Prime Minister to the Parliament are completely unsatisfactory. The Prime Minister’s 10 proposals are filled with contradictions. In practice they would not work. It is not made clear when and where these safeguards will be applied. Will they apply to existing contracts or will they be applied only to future contracts? The Prime Minister made it quite plain that the new safeguards are needed because the present ones are not strong enough to cover Australia’s enhanced status as a uranium producer. But Australia now has contracts for the supply of over 9000 tonnes of yellowcake. So far, less than 1000 tonnes have been supplied. The Prime Minister has continued to commit us to the export of more than 8000 tonnes of yellowcake without adequate safeguards. They have been left to the protection of the international safeguards which the Prime Minister admits are not good enough. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) knows that.

Turning to the other provisions put forward by the Prime Minister one finds that the measure of safety they provide is an illusion. It is implied that the safeguards of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty are defective; yet we find when we look closely at these tougher safeguards that nothing has been added which will remove these defects and provide stiffer safeguards. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty cannot prevent the diversion of fissile material to weapons use. India produced its bomb without violating existing safeguards. It used plutonium from a research reactor provided 20 years ago by Canada. When Canada withdrew its supplies from India the gesture proved futile because the United States and later the Soviet Union kept up supplies of enriched uranium to the Indian Government. We cannot expect Australia to be any more successful than Canada in dictating the end use of its uranium supplies. Even with the tightest controls, supplies of enriched uranium and plutonium can go amiss. The nuclear accounting systems at present are inadequate. The Acting Prime Minister must agree with that. For example, the Federal General Accounting Office of the United States has just revealed that up to 9 tonnes of enriched plutonium and enriched uranium could not be accounted for at privately owned nuclear facilities. This was an increase of 3.5 tonnes over previous estimates. Anybody with common sense can imagine the nuclear weapons that could be made from that amount of plutonium. Uranium cannot be located, cannot be accounted for and cannot be assured of not getting into the wrong hands. Yet the Government says that it wants to leave the safeguarding of our further exports to the international agencies.

The Government is being extremely naive to suppose that if it moves to mine and export it will be able to account for every ounce of uranium supplied. It is just as naive to suppose that the safeguards will have any effect on those nuclear weapons producers which have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The so-called safeguard here is a bilateral agreement that Australian uranium will not be used for offensive purposes. That cannot prevent our uranium from replacing uranium supplied by other sources. Such a displacement would allow the diversion of supplies to weapons production without any technical infringement of the safeguards in the bilateral agreement. Australian uranium would permit the diversion of uranium from other suppliers who might not have insisted on a bilateral agreement on safeguards and whose conditions are not as strong as ours. With the best intentions, the Australian Government could be contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation. I remind the House of recommendation 3 of the first Fox report, which reads in part:

The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war. This is the most serious hazard associated with the industry.

Honourable members know that that is the one binding and firm recommendation of the first report. We know that if we continue to mine uranium we will accelerate the development of nuclear weapons not only by those nations which already have them but also by other nations which wish to get them.

Turning to the other provisions, the Government ‘s fifth safeguard provides a so-called fall back position. If the international safeguards fail to apply the bilateral agreement, Australia would give guarantees similar to those international guarantees. That may make the international safeguards work in some situations in which they might not otherwise work. But it does not get around the problem that international safeguards may not be effective even when they can be applied. If the safeguards are weak in the first place there is little point in patting oneself on the back because one has a fall back position that ensures that they will be applied.

The Fraser Government’s sixth proposal- the re-export provision- has the potential to be the best aspect of the Fraser Government’s proposals. Under the bilateral agreements, reexport of Australian uranium by an approved client would be conditional on Australian Government approval. If this could be made to stick, then of course it would be an extremely valuable safeguard. The Prime Minister was extremely short on detail about how such an agreement could be enforced. The only sanction that springs to mind is enforcement of contractual obligation through the international justice machinery. It is hard to see how such a sanction would act to deter a customer bent on re-exporting. Cutting off future supplies need not deter. I hope the Acting Prime Minister understands that. It did not deter India when Canada cut off supplies.

With regard to reprocessing, the Government’s offer is a pledge to consult and co-operate with international studies and consultations. This is a rather dishonest way of dodging the issue. In particular I refer to the crucial debate about reprocessing between the United States and European governments. This debate has not stopped reprocessing with its attendant dangers of proliferation. All that the Government’s commitment means is that Australia will not take a firm stand on reprocessing, nor has it anything of substance to contribute to the debate. If it has, I have not heard it from the Acting Prime Minister. I hope to hear it in this debate.

It is just as unrealistic to expect that Australia could enforce adequate physical security over nuclear materials. How could we do this if yellowcake is already in the hands of a customer? How could it be enforced? Even more farfetched is the implication in the fifth provision of the Fraser Government’s proposal that nuclear material supplied by Australia should remain under safeguards for its full life. The full life of nuclear material is at least 300 000 years. It is about time that the people who talk about looking after and pohang these safeguards understood that point. How could such a provision be enforced? Australia could not ensure that safeguards would apply for one year, let alone 300 000 years!

In total, these provisions provide no safeguards for the peaceful use of any Australian exports of uranium. There are no teeth in these safeguards. They could not be enforced. The only card the Australian Government has is to withhold further supplies once a breach has occurred. In this situation part of Government policy would have to be as in recommendation 6 of the first Fox report which the Government has already rejected. Recommendation 6 states:

A decision to mine and sell uranium should not be made unless the Commonwealth Government ensures that the Commonwealth can, at any time, on the basis of considerations of the nature discussed in this report, immediately terminate those activities, permanently, indefinitely or for a specified period.

This may prevent aggravation but it will not undo the basic damage. Until safeguards covering the disposal of Australian uranium can be assured there is only one course open to the Australian Government- it must stop the mining and export of Australian uranium. The safeguards contained in the Prime Minister’s statement are only a mask for the Government’s basic motive, and that is greed. The Government wants to make more money. It wants to earn money by exporting uranium. However, I shall deal more fully with this matter in another debate. The greed of Liberal Party thinkers and National Country Party thinkers emerged clearly at the New South Wales Liberal Party conference last weekend. The conference expressed its support for a motion that the mining of uranium go ahead as quickly as possible. This motion was justified by the cold cash ethic that if Australia does not get its uranium out and sell it as quickly as possible it will miss out. As an after thought, a clause on safeguards was added from the floor. This shows the priority that the coalition parties give to safeguards! The coalition does not care about safeguards as long as the mining companies can get in for their cut and grab for the money as soon as possible. That is the morality of this Government and its supporters.

For the reasons I have outlined the Opposition sees no reason to modify its stand. I remind honourable members opposite that the Australian Labor Party will not honour contracts to export uranium entered into by this Government. It is only recently that there has been an understanding that miners would have to be prepared to invest some $200m. We need to be given time to conduct a general debate on this issue. We need time for people to understand the real issues.

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

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Eric Robinson)- by leaveagreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Acting Prime Minister speaking without limitation of time.

Mr ANTHONY:
Acting Prime Minister, Minister for National Resources and Minister for Overseas Trade · Richmond · NCP/NP

– The future of uranium development and Australia’s policy on nuclear safeguards and nuclear nonproliferation are among the most important issues facing the Government, the Parliament and the people of Australia today. Last week the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made a major and important statement on Australian safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation policy. The Parliament now has before it the final report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. These are questions of supreme importance to Australia and to the international community.

The energy crisis of the last few years has had profound implications for international relations and quite clearly is of major concern to the future economic growth and well being of mankind. The dwindling world supplies of petroleum have made it abundantly clear that the world must turn to other sources of energy. President Carter has crystallised this problem in a dramatic way in his energy policy announcement of 20 April. The central theme of that policy, which was acknowledged by the major industrial countries at the world economic summit meeting a few weeks ago, is that the world must adjust to the new realities in energy supply and usage. If it does not do so the world economy will be faced with precipitate and cataclysmic adjustments in the mid-1980s, the economic ramifications of which will be felt by developed and less developed countries alike.

Australia is, of course, fortunate in that we are well endowed with indigenous energy resources. Our contribution and the part we can play in this international problem, is that of a reliable and dependable supplier of energy sources to those countries that are obliged to make the more painful and difficult adjustments than we ourselves will have to bear. Very clearly the major industrial countries must turn to an increased usage of coal and nuclear energy to satisfy their long term requirements. Australia has vast resources of coal and we have vast resources of uranium. The responsibility of Australia regarding these resources to the international community is real and clear. When it was in office the Whitlam Government clearly recognised these responsibilities. Our Government also recognises them.

The use of uranium for nuclear electricity generation raises very special problems. These were, of course, very clearly recognised in the reports of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. Some of the problems have attracted increased international attention in recent times. As the Prime Minister pointed out in his statement to this Parliament on 24 May, clearly there has been an important statement by President Carter on nuclear energy in which he emphasised the need to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons or explosive capabilities without forgoing the tangible benefits of nuclear power.

The Government has received the second report of the Ranger Inquiry. The inquiry is of course in the nature of an advisory body on environmental matters and has made a number of recommendations to the Government. But let me stress that ultimately it has to be the Government which will make the decisions on whether there should be further development. The Government was elected by the people of Australia and it therefore has the responsibility for decisionmaking in this matter. The Government, being the Government of Australia, must take the whole spectrum of national interests into account in making these decisions. It is not appropriate for me at this stage to comment in detail on the recommendations of the Fox inquiry. There are, however, a number of issues raised by the inquiry which are important to the debate. The importance of uranium in the world scene is wellrecognised. It is already important to the economies of many industrialised countries and it is being recognised by developing countries as vital to their prospects for economic growth.

Already over 1 80 nuclear reactors are in operation, another 300 are under construction or on order, plus nearly 300 more are in the planning stages. This is a total of nearly 800. This is an enormous investment when one recognises that the cost of each power station is approximately $ 1,000m. In spite of the minimal exploration effort compared with that of other countries, the Alligator Rivers area, the subject of the inquiry, already accounts for nearly 20 per cent of the worlds known low-cost uranium reserves. More importantly in the world energy scene, the Alligator Rivers area is the worlds largest uncommitted uranium province. The development of that resource could make a similar contribution to Australia as did the development of the iron ore or coal industries in the 1960s. Naturally, development of these uranium resources would have a much greater impact on the economy of the Northern Territory. Such development would provide a firm basis for Northern Territory statehood. A greater exploration effort would certainly result in the region becoming even more vital to the world, to Australia, and to the Northern Territory.

Putting aside these obvious benefits, let us have a look at what the Fox Inquiry itself had to say. The Fox Inquiry identified 5 problems associated with uranium development. But it said that the most serious danger is the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons. In its second report, the Inquiry set out its attitude on this issue as follows:

We did not make a recommendation about what Australia should do about the danger. The risk was apparent and great, but international relations (including trade, diplomatic and defence considerations) were involved and a decision as to the correct strategy had to be made by those equipped to make it. We know enough of the considerations affecting resource strategy to be aware of its complexity and the impact it can have on world affairs.

The Inquiry stated:

  1. That total renunciation of intention to supply was not justified, and was undesirable.
  2. That the options were either to proceed to supply as soon as practicable or to delay making a decision about supplying for a period of several years. In our view, a decision on the options depended largely on what was deemed to be the best strategy in relation to the matter of proliferation.

In other words, the Inquiry outlined the issues, but left it to the Government to take the final decisions. These issues have to be seen in the context of international developments. I have particularly in mind the initiatives of the United States, Canadian and Australian Governments to the further strengthening of international safeguards arrangements. There have been extensive consultations between the 3 Governments on this matter. The recent initiatives of the Carter Administration are of particular importance. President Carter has committed the United States to the continued development of its program of light water reactors. At the same time, however, the United States Government is seeking to restrain the development of the plutonium economy. It has been made clear to Australia that it can play a central role in this area. Surely there can be no doubt that, if Australia were to make its uranium resources available, the strengthening of nuclear safeguards would be greatly enhanced. The possibility of premature development of the plutonium economy, with its implications for nuclear proliferation, could be avoided. It is only by acting now that we can contribute to long-term global stability.

The recent statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on our policy on safeguards will make a substantial contribution towards achieving such stability. Where does the Opposition Labor Party stand on the issue? In an address to the United Nations the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) when he was Prime Minister reminded the world that the quest for resources was the oldest of all the causes of war. The Fox Inquiry itself stated:

It may be that by supplying some countries we would help to relieve those pressures which can lead to armed conflict, nuclear or non-nuclear.

But what is the Labor Party proposing to do? It wants to withhold uranium from the world thereby contributing to a situation which, in the view of the Leader of the Opposition, can only lead to an increase in global tension. Not only would such an attitude by the Labor Party lead to tensions regarding resources but would also contribute to what President Carter and many governments, including the Australian Government, are seeking to avoid, namely, the more rapid development of the plutonium economy with the attendant risk of nuclear proliferation. I was most disturbed at the scare-mongering tactics used by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) in commenting on the Prime Minister’s safeguards statement. He rubbished the International Atomic Energy Agency. In rubbishing the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, the honourable member has said that there is an implied reliance in the Government’s policy on IAEA safeguards which, he claims, the Fox Inquiry said were next to useless. I draw attention to the section entitled Conclusions in chapter 13 of the First Report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry which states:

The Commission recognises that these defects, taken together, are so serious that existing safeguards may provide only an illusion of protection. However we do not conclude that they render valueless the concept of international safeguards. We believe it is both essential and possible to make safeguards arrangements more effective.

The safeguards policy announced by the Prime Minister does, of course, go well beyond existing safeguard requirements. It is directed to achieving safeguards arrangements which are more effective. It requires conditions of control and use of Australian uranium over and above just the application of IAEA safeguards, the task of which is to verify that nuclear material is not diverted from peaceful uses. These cover: Careful selection of eligible customers for uranium; bilateral agreements with customer countries; fallback safeguards; prior Australian Government consent in relation to re-export, enrichment, and reprocessing; and physical security. This comprehensive approach is closely in line with the recent United States and Canadian policy and it builds on the recommendations of the First Fox Report.

Of course, one important aspect of the comprehensive safeguards policy announced by the Prime Minister is a requirement for IAEA safeguards. Equally, this is an important requirement of the safeguards policy recently announced by President Carter. Like the United States, we believe that the IAEA should remain a central element in nuclear safeguards systems. We will collaborate with the United States and other countries in further strengthening the IAEA.

I would most sincerely urge the honourable member for Blaxland, in the interests of mankind, not to rubbish the IAEA. The policy put forward in the Government’s statement represents a practical, reasonable and effective safeguards regime to seek from countries wishing to import uranium from Australia under any future contracts. The policy goes beyond a mere acceptance by Australia of our international obligations as a party to the non-proliferation treaty. It constitutes a policy as stringent as that adopted by any nuclear supplier. It incorporates and builds on the findings of the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. It incorporates the kinds of ideas in relation to safeguards being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, who, of course, was quite keen to see uranium developed during his period as Prime Minister. The policy which has been announced provides a firm basis on which we can work with others to strengthen international safeguards regimes in the world nuclear industry. Our policy and safeguards arrangements will be kept closely under review to take account of the future evolution of safeguards.

Let us look at some of the attitudes and policies of the Labor Party and examine them in detail. Despite the conclusions of the first Fox Report and its recommendations on parliamentary debate, the Labor Party pre-empted any debate and formulated a fixed and unrealistic policy. So much for a parliamentary debate. Like the Government, the Labor Party has said that existing uranium contracts should be honoured. However, unlike the Government, which has not yet made any final decisions on new mining, the Labor Party pre-empted all rational discussion on these matters by saying: No new mining development is to take place. I would point out that the Labor Party has made this statement despite the Inquiry saying that a total refusal to supply would place Australia in clear breach of Article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The most charitable view that I can take of the Labor Party’s attitude is that it has been prepared by a group of incompetents. On the one hand, it says Australia should honour existing contracts, but on the other hand it says: No new mining developments. I ask: How on earth does the Labor Party expect contracts to be honoured when there is not enough uranium at the existing mine at Mary Kathleen and in the Government’s stockpile? Presumably Labor would purchase overseas or renege on those contracts which it said it would honour.

I remind the Opposition that its platform says that Labor will work for enrichment of Australian uranium resources in plants which are located in Australia. How do you enrich uranium if you are not going to mine it? Yet here is the Labor Party’s 1975 election policy. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) has alleged that this Government was intent on committing Australia to a supplier role in the Western world ‘s nuclear energy industry and that it has encouraged mining companies to enter longterm contracts for the supply of uranium, including to such countries as Iran. Obviously, the honourable member was asleep during his 3 years in Government; or perhaps he chose to ignore what his colleagues were doing. I would draw the attention of the House, including the Leader of the Opposition, to a joint Press statement of 2 November 1974 between the then Prime Ministers of Australia and Japan wherein it was said:

Mr Tanaka expressed his appreciation of the confirmation of supply by Australia to Japan of the contracted 9000 short tons of uranium . .

Just 2 days earlier, the then Minister for Minerals and Energy, the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) had the following to say in a statement entitled Northern Territory Uranium, which he tabled in this House:

When Australia negotiates further sales it will do so as a willing seller seeking willing buyers. In particular, we will ensure that our major trading partners-Japan, Italy and West Germany-obtain an equitable share of the uranium we have for export.

Not long after these 2 statements were madeabout 2 months- the then Prime Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, went on a long tour of Europe where he talked about uranium, among other things. He was virtually peddling Australian uranium to all the interested governments of Europe. Presumably he found what we have found- that one of the first things foreign governments, companies and individuals want to talk to us about is Australia’s uranium resources. Obviously, he was successful.

In making the second reading of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) said:

International assurances have been provided by Ministers that Australia will meet the uranium requirements of our major trading partners, which could amount to a total of about 100 000 tonnes of uranium . . .

In the second reading speech on that Bill, Labor committed us to supplying 100 000 tonnes of uranium. It is intriguing that in alleging that the Government was encouraging sales, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to only one country- Iran. Let us look at that question. I deny that this Government has encouraged mining companies to enter into long-term contracts for supplying uranium to Iran or any other country. However, I cannot make this denial on behalf of the previous Government. I would remind the House that in March 1975 the friend and colleague of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, namely, the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns), visited Iran in his then role of Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer. He was accompanied by the then Minister for Agriculture, Senator Wriedt. At the end of their visit, they released a joint statement with the Iranians which included the following sentence:

The Australian Ministers agreed that Iran would be given access to supplies of uranium from Australia under favourable conditions.

I need add no more to the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This recital of statements by Ministers of the Labor Governmentstatements which would have been taken at their face value by our trading partners- lead me to ask: Where does the Labor Party stand on this question? Why is it that while in government Labor adopted a responsible position, whereas now in Opposition it is not only irresponsible but it is also incompetent? In office, the Labor Government committed Australia to supply 100000 tonnes of uranium. We have inherited that commitment. Now Labor wants to walk away. It wants Australia to abrogate Labor’s commitment to supply 100 000 tonnes of uranium to our trading partners. What new information does Labor have that the Ranger inquiry did not have, that the Government does not have, which makes Labor say: No new mining.

I believe that the best way to sum up the position presently facing Australia is by posing a series of questions. Is the Australian economy so strong that we can deny ourselves the clear economic benefits that would flow from the mining and export of uranium? Is our balance of payments so secure that we can forgo the considerable boost which uranium exports will bring? There are other wider questions of more farreaching consequences than the effects on the Australian economy. For example, will there be a nuclear power industry around the world regardless of whether Australian exports uranium? Would a refusal to supply uranium to countries which need it adversely affect our relationships with those countries? Will a refusal to supply create serious tensions internationally? Would we be in a better position to influence the course of the world uranium industry, especially in regard to waste disposal, to safeguards and to control of materials, instead of being right out of the industry? Not only has the Government to accept its responsibilities to the Australian people in finding the answers to these questions but also I believe the Australian people must answer them in a manner which will serve the best interests of mankind, not for tomorrow but for the next decade and for the next century.

Motion (by Mr Howard)- by leave- agreed to.

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Blaxland from speaking for a period not exceeding 25 minutes.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– It is about time that the Government came clean on the question of uranium exports. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) is just starting to put on a little bit of pace. Let me just make this point clear. I quoted as the basis for the last major speech I made on this subject in the House of Representatives 2 extracts from the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquirythe Fox report. It is stated on page 1 79 of the report:

A total renunciation of intention to supply designed to bring an end to all nuclear power industries or all further development of them would in our view be likely to fail totally in its purpose. If the purpose were simply to draw international attention to the dangers of and associated with the industry, that purpose might be achieved, but it is most unlikely that any worthwhile action would result. On the other hand, there are positive reasons against adopting such a course.

The report goes on to state on page 1 80:

We are aware of the view that total renunciation of intention to supply is undesirable.

I agree with those sentiments and I stand by the remarks I made in the previous speech about them. But implicit in the Labor policy is this: The international nuclear industry is unintentionally contributing, as the Fox inquiry suggested, to the risk of nuclear war. For this reason, Labor has placed emphasis upon the question of safeguard development and waste disposal technology. Let me repeat the words uttered by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) in his first statement to the House on the presentation of the first Fox report. He said:

The Government welcomes any international initiatives for strengthening the international non-proliferation regime.

In other words, he said that the Government will do nothing itself about it. But if somebody else does the work to propose new safeguards, then maybe the Government will adopt them. There was no intention on the part of the Government at that time- that is 5 months ago- to do anything about safeguards. The Government has stolen the spirit of the Labor safeguard policy and tried to twist it so as to suggest that Labor is trying to put the damper on the development of the international nuclear community by withholding Australian reserves when, in fact, what we have been saying is that time has to be devoted to the development of international safeguards for protection against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We have said that this will take time, just as the strategic arms limitation talks have taken time between only 2 major super powers. Those talks have taken years. What we are dealing with here is a regime of safeguards governing a whole gaggle of nations who have moved and are moving into nuclear power. To do anything substantial about the development of safeguards will be a long, arduous and complex task. All we ask of the Government is this: Do not discount our asset.

Do not discount our leverage by permitting exports now. Try to at least get some real improvement in the nature of these safeguards.

The Minister says that the policy of the Opposition is to move the world closer towards a plutonium economy and that we should fall into line immediately with the policy of the United States of America to prevent this. I think that the prima facie policy of the United States is commendable. I said so in my last major speech in the Parliament on the subject that the policy of the United States is important because of its pervasive influence in the West, in the nuclear industry, in technology, in the monetary system and in global defence. Obviously, the United States has a huge input into the West in terms of any policy initiative it seeks to have accepted. But the point is, as the Deputy Prime Minister is aware, the French and the Japanese will go it alone in fast breeder development no matter what the United States says. That is how they see it. These nations are short on resources and because they have progressed in fast breeder technology they will not fall over themselves to suit United States nuclear policy. A little bit of the rub of what the United States is now doing is to opt out of fast breeder development because it is in some respects having problems with fast breeder technology development.

The real issue is this: The world, regardless of the fast breeder, will come to rely upon a large program of conventional thermal reactors. The fast breeder reactor, even if its development were accelerated, would not be a large component of the commercial reactor programs of the Western world until around the turn of the century or later. The development of pilot fast breeder reactors is just beginning. It will be beyond the turn of the century before they proliferate to become a large component of nuclear power generation. At that stage there will be a larger market for uranium to fuel conventional nuclear reactors. The Deputy Prime Minister said that I had rubbished- that is the world he used- the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. He said that I did this to the detriment of that Agency and to the detriment of mankind. Let me quote what was stated in the Fox report in regard to the IAEA safeguards, lt is stated at page 120:

Experience with IAEA safeguards demonstrates that countries have noi been prepared -

I stress the words ‘ not been prepared ‘- to accept continuous surveillance of nuclear activities by an external authority. The control system established by the Agency involves accounting methods augmented by regular on the spot’ inspections. The inspections are carried OUt by a team of skilled personnel within the IAEA: as at 30 June 1976 according to information available to the Commission, there were 79 inspectors, of whom about 50 regularly carried out inspections. Several witnesses were of the opinion that this force was far too small to maintain effective surveillance of existing installations covered by IAEA safeguards.

In addition, I will quote from the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister when the first Fox report was presented. He said:

The Commission recognises that these defects taken together are so serious that existing safeguards may provide only an illusion of protection. However, we do not conclude that they render valueless the concept of international safeguards. We believe it is both essential and possible to make safeguard arrangements more effective.

Could anyone now complain that I monstered the IAEA or that I have rubbished the IAEA? All I am saying is that the International Atomic Energy Agency is an imperfect instrument in a very imperfect nuclear world and that the basis of the Government’s safeguards policy is too reliant upon the IAEA system of safeguards which is clearly inadequate. The Fox report backs what I said. So I think I have had enough of the Deputy Prime Minister trying to lecture me about the IAEA to disguise the real question about the competence of the IAEA to render an effective system of safeguards. The system just clearly does not exist. The Deputy Prime Minister says in his speech:

Our policy incorporates the kinds of ideas in relation to safeguards being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

Of course, the Government has incorporated the policies of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam). The Government has trailed the Opposition in nuclear policy all along. The Government had no idea of safeguards. The Government had no idea what to do with Australia’s uranium policy. Now it is trying to pick up our lines on safeguards. But instead of doing it as we have and suggesting that time is needed for the development of adequate safeguards the Government is now formulating instant policy such as the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) before he left for the United States a week ago. This was a similar proposal to that the Leader of the Opposition enunciated in his speech in the Parliament a month ago. So much for your flattery of the Leader of the Opposition’s proposal. All you have done is adopt his proposal and yet manage to abort the intention of his speech. So really you have not thought about safeguards. You have not really thought about the international environmental interest or the dangers. All you have thought about is getting your greasy little paws on the money even at this point when a proper market has not even developed- assuming that the market is your criterion.

The Deputy Prime Minister in his speech said that the Labor Party decision pre-empted the Government’s decision on the question of exports. Let us get this in perspective. The Labor Party made its decision after the presentation of the first Fox report which addressed itself to the question of exports. The second Fox report deals only with mining particular deposits in the Northern Territory. It is the first report which deals with the question of whether Australia should export. That report was presented on a Thursday, the last sitting day of a parliamentary week, about 5 or 6 months ago. On the following Tuesday you were to make a statement in the Parliament about the first report and about exports in relation to existing contracts. What you intended to do was jamb the Opposition into a parliamentary debate -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! I point out to the honourable member for Blaxland that I will not be bringing in anything. It is the Government which will be bringing in legislation and taking action. The Chair does not do it.

Mr KEATING:

– I did not propose that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member said ‘you ‘ which in a sense is referring to the Chair.

Mr KEATING:

– When I said ‘you’ I meant the Government, so-called. The Government then proposed that the policy on existing contracts be debated forthwith. The Opposition of course, being a parliamentary party, had to come into the chamber with a defined attitude, and we met that day to determine it. When the Government found out that we had determined our policy it backed-01 and called off the debate. Let that go on the record. The Government thought that it was being smart in trying to jamb us into a premature policy. We had the first Fox report and made up our mind on the basis of it. Considering all the qualifications addressed to the dangers of nuclear power in that report we decided that we would opt for a position of delay, and we carried a motion which I have often recounted to the House.

Further on in his speech the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Opposition would run out on existing contracts because we could not meet them. All that the Opposition says is that to the best of Australia ‘s capacity Australia would meet existing contracts from what is available at the Mary Kathleen mine and from the government stockpile. There would be a shortfall of about 1700 tonnes to 2000 tonnes between the contracted tonnage and our capacity to meet the contracts, but those deliveries will take place after 1984. The major contractee is Japan. It has scaled back the proportion of electricity generation attributable to nuclear power from 60 million kilowatts to 36 million kilowatts. Obviously Japan is in the process now of stockpiling uranium but only at reasonable prices. In respect of the delivery of 1 700 tonnes after 1 984-a good 6 to 8 years away- Japan, West Germany and the United States of Amercia which are the 3 countries to have contracted with us have plenty of time in which to arrange alternative supplies if they want to do so. They can get 1 700 tonnes in a butcher’s shop without having to worry about whether Australia alone can supply it. So to the best of our ability we would supply it without needing to develop new mines. We have said that we will honour the existing contracts without rushing into a premature policy on new mines.

The Deputy Prime Minister was rude enough to try to lecture us on our policy when the Government does not even have a policy. It has a day to day policy. It does not have a platform on this matter and never has had one. Yet he had the temerity to stand up and tell us what our platform on uranium is. Well, the parliamentary Labor Party just happens to have the right under our Federal rules to determine between conferences what the policy should be, and we have opted for a delay in the development of Australian uranium. Let me now refer to what was said in the Fox report. On page 1 80 the report states:

Japan is perhaps the country most likely to need Australian uranium and it has already contracted for supply of all its requirements until 198S, almost entirely with countries other than Australia. When taken in conjunction it seems to us that these factors make delay an option which might reasonably be followed.

I shall repeat that:

When taken in conjunction it seems to us that these factors make delay an option which might reasonably be followed.

On page 1 8 1 the report states:

Because the evidence from which each line of argument is derived remains conjectural and also for reasons stated earlier when discussing the proliferation problem, we have not found a compelling basis for a conclusion on the question whether it is preferable to delay coming to a decision about mining for a period of several years or alternatively to proceed with carefully planned development of the industry.

In other words the Fox Commission made no decision about delay but canvassed it heavily in the report. The second Fox report not only canvassed the question of delay but also costed it. Discussing the economic effects of delaying the start of new uranium mining in Australia, the Commission said:

A 2-year delay in the development of a national uranium industry accompanied by an equivalent delay in the incidence of benefits and costs would cause a loss of approximately 1 7 per cent of the present worth of estimated net economic benefits.

Seventeen per cent for 2 years. It continued:

This would be equivalent to a reduction in present worth of $99m at 1976 price levels in the case of a low estimate and $624m in the case of a high estimate.

The Commission then went on to cost a 5-year delay. So the Opposition is in line not only with the spirit of the first Fox report which talks about the development of safeguards and the consequences of a delay but also with the second Fox report which suggests a sequential basis of development of Australian mines. Why did the second report of the Fox Commission suggest a sequential basis of development? It was purely and simply because it believed that three or four mines each with a throughput capacity of 3000 tonnes a year would depress the current uranium market. That is why the Commission went for the Ranger development at 3000 tonnes a year. The reason the Commission talked about delay was that in its view the market has not developed.

Let us leave the environmental questions, the global environment interests and the moral questions aside for one moment and dwell upon the market. Does anybody in the Government seriously suggest that there is at present a market for uranium in the world with spot sales at $30, $36 and $40 a lb? In many mines the cost of production is just under $30 a lb. Mary Kathleen cannot produce at less than $28 a lb. I acknowledge that that is an inefficient mine and that a new mine with larger tonnages would produce at less cost. However, the market has not developed. Why was RTZ pressuring the Labor Government to move into Mary Kathleen rather than to develop the Ranger and Pancontinental mines? It was because it did not want those mines depressing world prices. There will not be a real market for uranium until the middle 1980s because the world did not move into nuclear power policy until the Arab oil boycott in 1 972 forced countries to rethink their energy policies. Some moved towards nuclear power. That move in some countries has been temporarily held up by environmental objections and the general view that nuclear power is undesirable. Many countries in which power rationing is a political reality will move ahead with a proportion of their electricity generation coming from nuclear power. So there probably will be some firming of the market in uranium in the middle 1 980s.

Talking only about the market and commercial aspects, these mines will take about 3 years to fabricate. There is probably a lead time of 18 months to 2 years before they can begin. If the market starts to improve in about 1985 or 1986 a decision on Australian uranium would need to be made in about 1980 or 1981 in order to get the benefit of that market. However, the industry and the Government are suggesting that these reserves will be rendered valueless unless we move now towards a policy to develop these reserves. The reserves have been lying there since the millennium. They were discovered in 1 969 and yet the industry and the Government say they must be developed now to maximum returns. Is anyone seriously contending that, if these reserves were to have been discovered tomorrow, the mining interests would not be intending to mine them with huge returns in the middle 1980s? Of course not. Of course that would be their intention. But because they found them in 1969 they want now to have their hot hands upon the money. Pancontinental was prepared to sign a contract with the Italian hydrocarbon organisation, ENI, at less than $6 a lb only a few years ago. When the Labor Minister for Minerals and Energy said that there would be no export approval, a great hue and cry went up in the industry. What a terrible thing that was! Now, the long term price is around $36 a lb. Spot sales are around $40 a lb. Even given inflation compensation, the price has dramatically improved.

It is simply a buyer’s market. The European Economic Community and the Japanese will certainly buy uranium. They will stockpile it if the price is right. But they are not desperate. The United States is self sufficient in uranium until about 1987. Japan is self sufficient in uranium until 1990. The European Economic Community will buy cheaply if it can. Yet the fools in the Government want to flog it off as fast as they can mine it so that they can please the local industry. They have no regard for the global environmental interest. They have no regard for the development of safeguards. They do not even have enough damn commercial sense to make the best of a bargain that they want to enter into. The Prime Minister will run to the United States in a week or so and fall at the knees of President Carter with his Cart it to Carter policy. He will offer Australian uranium to accommodate that policy. Does Japan, our major trading partner, agree with the Carter policy? Of course not. It is a country without resources. It is committed to allocating a proportion of its electricity generation to nuclear power. That country knows damn well that, if the world moves as President Carter wants it to move on the basis of conventional reactors, it will pay through the nose for uranium. It is opposed to that policy and it will go ahead with fast breeders.

I do not applaud that attitude. I do not applaud the development of the nuclear industry for one moment. But the nuclear horse bolted about 15 years ago. It is now very late in the day to lock the gate. The best we can do in this imperfect system is to improve the safeguards and do something about weapons proliferation and waste disposal. The Opposition is determined that the Government will not get its grubby hands upon the returns from Australian uranium until those conditions are fulfilled. It will not cart it away to please companies until the Australian national interest is met. I have stressed in the Parliament over and over again that a Labor Government will exercise the prerogatives available to it through export controls by interrupting cash flows for these developments if it must, so that a national consensus on uranium policy is reached. We are determined to give effect to this worthwhile objective.

Mr Haslem:

– In other words, you will continue with your policy of economic vandalism.

Mr KEATING:

– The honourable member is only a oncer. He will not be back. He should shut up and keep his place. We will not be caught up in a premature policy by the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister committing himself to exports while in the United States or elsewhere. Let the message be clear. The Opposition does not believe that the total withholding of Australian uranium reserves in perpetuity will stop the development of the nuclear industry. But it believes that Australia has one hell of a card to play in trying to improve the system of international safeguards so as to do something positive for mankind about the threat of nuclear proliferation and contamination of the biosphere and the food chain from these toxic actinidesOpposition members will not depreciate Australia’s assets by falling over themselves to please the United States at the knees of Schlesinger. Carter or anybody else. Australia is a sovereign nation with a sovereign interest and the power to make rational decisions in the national and international interest. No amount of name calling or provocation by the Deputy Prime Minister will remove us from that course. The Government had better settle down to understand that the aim of the Opposition and the trade union movement is for a rational policy on the development of Australia’s uranium reserves and the future course of the international nuclear community. We will not be distracted from our path.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– It is a little hard to follow the reasoning and attitude of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). On one side we had the high minded moral attitudes. On the other side we had the grubby, greasy paw extended. We have always known that he does not realise whether he is Arthur or Martha. That has never been more clear than today. I know he is uncomfortable with the attitudes of his own Party.

This debate is about whether Australia should develop and export its uranium resources. Australia has the greatest known resources of cheap uranium in the world. It is not just a case of whether the world will have uranium because plenty of uranium is available in other countries. It is a case of whether there will be a world shortage of uranium. Those who have been taking the high moral attitude have talked about the danger of world disaster from the nuclear industry. Much, indeed nearly all, of what they have said is true. The weakness of the argument is that the danger will exist irrespective of whether Australia develops and exports uranium.

An Australian decision to deny or restrict that development would, in no way, decrease any of the real dangers to which they have drawn attention. On the contrary, for reasons I shall give in a moment, it would increase those dangers. Exports of uranium from Australia will do nothing to add to the dangers. Pandora’s box is open. Australia cannot close it.

The world needs power; it needs energy. For electrical energy which is a great part of the world’s need there is no quick source available except nuclear power. It is the cheapest, cleanest and safest form of power available. It is the cheapest because of the rise in the prices of fossil fuels. To Australia, perhaps, with its abundant supplies of fossil fuels, there is not the same advantage. But for other countries, less fortunate than Australia, cheapness is of some consequence. Nuclear power is the cleanest form of power. Fossil fuels cause pollution and dangers in a way which nuclear power does not. We are all worried, looking ahead, about the change in the earth’s atmosphere which can come from the development of fossil fuel plants and the increase in the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We can conjecture the consequences. We cannot be certain of them. However, the conjecture is not very nice. We see over our cities a haze of pollution. Nuclear power will help us to dissipate that haze. It is the safest form of energy.

No form of energy is free from difficulties and dangers. But if one adds up the dangers and deaths that we know occur from fossil fuel- in the coal mines, in the transport of fuel and by respiratory disease- we know that they are orders of magnitude greater than even the worst conjectures of the dangers from nuclear power. Nothing in this world is completely safe. Nuclear power is the safest form of energy available to us.

Those who would deny that power to the rest of the world face a dreadful responsibility. The world’s population grows exponentially and already famine looks to be round the corner. It is only by power, energy, with its effect on the availability of transport and fertiliser and things of this character that we can hope to reduce the danger of world starvation and deprivation.

We in Australia have a very healthy kind of life, a comparatively luxurious kind of life. Are we to deny those advantages to the rest of the world because we want to sit on those sources of power which are here by geological chance in the Australian soil? The world will not tolerate that, I would think. But it is worse than that. Starving people are desperate people. People deprived of the means of material advance have a habit of seizing what they cannot get by peaceful means. If one thinks of the danger of war, and nuclear war, one of the things we can best do to add to that danger would be to deprive the rest of the world of power, of energy. This is what the policy of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) is designed to do.

There is a dreadful responsibility on those who, in Australia and elsewhere in the world over the last four or five years, have campaigned as they have against the growth of nuclear energy. Let them remember that in the coming decades millions of people will starve to death because of what they have done. Let them try to bear on their consciences the guilt of those deaths which are now, I am afraid, irrevocable because there is a time lag in all these things. A delay of four or five years has already cost the world dearly enough.

I am not going to go into the motives or the manipulations of those who have campaigned against nuclear power. I simply draw to the attention of the House the fact that we had a very well organised and well orchestrated campaign. It has not occurred by chance. I am willing to say that in this, as in other cases, most of the victims of this campaign have been sincere people who just do not know what has been done to them, who has done it or why they have done it.

I return to the fact that it is Australia’s responsibility to the world to mine and make available uranium as quickly as possible. I return to our position here. In a way the Fox reports are already out of date because 3 things have happened which have made them outdated. First there is the impact of the power crisis whose magnitude we have realised only in the last few months. Second there are the Carter initiatives in regard to breeder reactors. I say in passing- it is obviously true- that if we deny ample supplies of uranium to the world we will immensely increase, in Japan and Italy and elsewhere- as the honourable member for Blaxland said a few moments ago- the drive towards the fast breeder reactor. Those who think that there are special dangers in the fast breeder reactor in present circumstances might well consider that by denying uranium to the world they are making the development of that fast breeder reactor inevitable. There is a third thing, which is a local thing, on which perhaps I should not dwell too much. That is that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has made new discoveries in the Alligator River area, not proved as to their magnitude but indicating that under that plain there are numbers of Nabarleks, Rangers and Pancontinentals still to be discovered.

What about our own Australian advantages? Firstly, the development of uranium would add tremendously to our budget revenues. It would be a profitable trade. I hope that it will all be in Australian hands, but whether or not it is in Australian hands the companies involved will be paying nearly half their profits into the Federal budget. Those profits, looking ahead, would be enough to pay our age pensioners. Who is going to talk about the greasy paws of the age pensioners? I do not think those are suitable words. Surely there is nothing wrong in a government’s thinking ahead for its own revenues on which social development and welfare payments may well depend.

But secondly there is this little matter of the balance of payments on foreign account. On current account we are already deeply in the red. We are not paying our way. And this is at a time when we are able to produce from our own resources 70 per cent of our oil requirements. We will not produce 70 per cent of our oil requirements from our own known resources very long. It is only six or seven years before we have to find another $2¥i billion or $3 billion a year in foreign exchange in order to keep our motor transport running.

Let those who want to delay the development of our uranium remember that they are opting for permanent petrol shortages for the whole of the Australian community. What about these greasy petrol tanks? It is fine to talk of them like that, is it not? But it will not be so fine when the people cannot fill up their cars at the nearest petrol bowser.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They are both finite resources.

Mr WENTWORTH:

-Sure. That is why it is important to get this development under way as quickly as possible. Speed is of the essence in this because there is a long inbuilt delay between the decision to develop and the actual mining and export of the uranium. It is a delay of years. Time is short- for the Australian Budget, for the Australian motorist. But worse than that, time is short for the world. Those who want to delay our development of uranium bear a dreadful responsibility not only to the Australian people but also to the people who in decades to come will be starving because we did not do things now.

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

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I want to quote from the first Fox report where the commissioners mention that in considering the evidence they found: that many wildly exaggerated statements are made about the risks and dangers of nuclear energy production by those opposed to it.

I certainly agree with that. They continued: what has surprised us more is a lack of objectivity in not a few of those in favour of it, including distinguished scientists . . . There is abundant evidence before us to show that scientists, engineers and administrators involved in the business of producing nuclear energy have at times painted excessively optimistic pictures of the safety and performance, projected or past, of various aspects of nuclear production.

They go on:

Ultimately, when the matters of fact are resolved, many of the questions which arise are social and ethical ones. We agree strongly with the view, repeatedly put to us by opponents of nuclear development, that, given a sufficient understanding of the science and technology involved, the final decision should rest with the ordinary man and not be regarded as the preserve of any group of scientists or experts, however distinguished.

I agree entirely with that view. Let us go to the final recommendations by the Commissioners because I think that they have been grossly misinterpreted. The first 2 recommendations of the first report are identical in wording after each defines the area of recommendation; in other words, for mining and milling of uranium and for the ordinary operation of nuclear power reactors. The Commissioners say:

The hazards -

That is, the hazards for any of these activities- if properly regulated and controlled, are not such as to justify a decision not to mine and sell Australian uranium.

If properly regulated and controlled’ is the key point. From this, in my view it depends on one’s interpretation of ‘hazard’ as to whether one takes the simplistic view that uranium mining is safe or whether the anxieties surrounding all that flows from such mining, and in essence discussed in the bulk of the report and the subject of the remaining 13 recommendations, mean that the total hazards preclude mining. In the very next recommendation, No. 3, the Commissioners said that ‘The most serious hazard associated with the industry’- that must mean mining as well as nuclear power reactors for, if not, what else?- ‘is that the nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war’. Recommendation 4 states that the regulation and control of mining is advised, not for the purpose of ensuring that it is just physically safe for the miners at the time, but ‘for the purposes mentioned in chapter 16’. This chapter deals with wider issues and reads:

The wider issues . . . arise out of grounds of opposition to the Ranger mining proposal. It was submitted that there were dangers associated with … the production of power in reactors, that there were serious and unresolved problems concerning the disposal of radio-active wastes, that there were risks of terrorist theft and use of plutonium, and that there were increased risks of nuclear war flowing from nuclear proliferation. It was contended that the continuing development of the nuclear power industry would produce greater inequality -

Not equality, but inequality- between the developed and underdeveloped countries, and that this is, as well as being undesirable in itself, was likely to lead to increased international tension, lt was submitted that, taken alone, some of those matters constituted sufficient ground for not mining, and that taken together they certainly did so.

The Commissioners are not necessarily agreeing with all that. They are simply stating that they were the issues raised. Then the Commissioners proceed to try to deal with them. In their assessment of the dangers inherent in the fuel cycle operations, whilst admitting that at present ‘those risks provide no proper basis for a refusal on our part to supply the advanced industrial countries which are likely to be our customers’, the Commissioners add a rider with an ominous ring:

It is possible that, in the future, the operations of a nuclear power industry in a particular country, or the operation of those industries generally, will be found to be more hazardous than now appears. This could simply be the consequence of growth, but is more likely to be the result of information coming to hand as the result of further research and experience.

We have had some examples of that recently and President Carter’s reaction, but I shall come to that point again later. While disposal of low level wastes appears satisfactory at present, they could constitute a problem if supervision were relaxed or if the operation became too widespread, or the bulk too great. But surely this is inherent in the development of nuclear power. As it spreads, these dangers will increase. Then there is the problem of high level waste. Experiments have been going on but no one is yet satisfied about the techniques for the disposal of this high level waste. Even if the spent fuel rods, which now must be stored carefully, are eventually reprocessedthere is some doubt that this will be economically feasible- the problem will arise of what to do with the long lived radio-active constituents in the waste. In either case, storage is reasonably safe, not absolutely safe, provided care is taken and the ponds or tanks are kept in a secure location under regular observation. So the whole lot if ifs and buts go on.

The Commissioners cannot dismiss the question of terrorism. They point out that while the risk is very small, if this practice were ever indulged in, it would constitute an appalling situation. They say that this risk of terrorism alone does not constitute a sufficient reason for Australia declining to supply uranium but it is an added reason for stringent controls. They go on to say:

The most serious danger in our view is that of proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The Commission feels this threat, despite the extensive precautions taken under the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards system, to an appropriate commentary on those 2 systems, one can only note President Carter’s recent actions which tends to suggest that those 2 agreements probably are nowhere near as safe as we believed. In fact, Carter’s action proved that they were not safe enough by a long chalk. So he is seeking to prove the precautions. Whether he will succeed remains to be seen. The Commissioners said:

We mentioned earlier an argument that Australia should permanently refuse to supply uranium . . .

They go on to suggest that in their view this threat to never supply uranium may not succeed in achieving the objective of cautioning the world and encouraging it to be more careful. They say:

We are of the view that total renunciation of intention to supply is undesirable.

The Commissioners state that without qualification. However, they are clearly in favour of temporary postponement of supply. Even if such action does not succeed in deterring other nations from embarking on a program of nuclear power development, at least some of the ‘existing problems may be more satisfactorily resolved’. The Commissioners state:

There is a possibility that during this period technological advances will reduce hazards to man and the environment, especially with regard to the treatment and disposal of highlevel radio active wastes.

The Commissioners, whilst concluding that Australia ‘should take the course which is determined to be the most effective and most practical in order to bring a favourable response from other states in relation to the proliferation problem’, insist that ‘if the mining and selling of uranium proceeds, it should be on a strictly controlled and regulated basis’. The Commissioners go on to point out many of the controls. Their second report does not relieve any of the anxieties that the first report raised for the would be miners. In fact some commentators suggest that it would enormously increase the cost and reduce the sales and profits. Yet the Commissioners comment:

We see no escape from those disadvantages, serious though some of them may be, if Australia is to participate in the nuclear power industry with a due sense of responsibility to the people of the world and its own people.

An argument was put to the Commissioners that once mining commences no government would have ‘the strength to resist the pressures for its continuance and even expansion. ‘ I think this is a very serious difficulty. The Commissioners said:

We believe that this is a serious consideration. If the argument is a sound one, then our proper course is to recommend against commencement. What seems to us to be vital is that a clear and firm statement of policy be made at the outset, supported, from the outset, by a strong system of control. If this is done, it is our hope and expectation that governments will be able to maintain effective control for the purposes we have mentioned.

So in my view it is facile but dishonest to interpret the first and second recommendations as approval for mining to go ahead, which is what the Press did initially. The hazards involved, beyond the immediate technical hazards of mining and ordinary operation of nuclear power reactors, have not been resolved. These hazards associated with the nuclear industry may, singly, not be sufficient to suggest uranium should not be mined or exported, but taken together, as they must, they present an overwhelming case at least for postponement of these operations. True, each one is just a straw, but how many straws does one need to break the camel ‘s back? In no way can recommendation 3 or any of the following recommendations be seen as either unrelated to the first 2 recommendations, or supporting the contention that the first 2 recommendations mean mining and export of uranium by Australia should proceed without a full community debate on all the implications of nuclear power. As the Commissioners pointed out in their introduction, the questions which arise ‘are social and ethical ones’ and so the answers must evolve from discussion in which all sections of the community are involved, not just a small group of self-appointed experts.

I conclude with some comments on the social and ethical considerations. We have heard a lot about the needs of the world for energy and so on and how, by depriving the world of nuclear power, we will be depriving the underdeveloped countries of great advantages. The sad fact, of course, is that the fruits of nuclear power development as it has been going on thus fargiven the escalating costs and so on, it is difficult to see how the picture will change- go to the developed countries and not to the underdeveloped countries.

Let me tell a story to try to illustrate the basic anxieties I have. I remember talking to a nuclear physicist about this subject and raising with him my anxieties about nuclear power stations and so on. He said: ‘I would live next door to a nuclear power station’. I was quite shocked. He could tell by the look on my face that I was shocked. I said: What do you mean?’ He said: ‘I think that it is technically possible to construct safe power stations and it is obviously technically safe to mine uranium if you engage in all the appropriate precautions’. He meant the sorts of things that the Fox report has recommended. I still looked very downcast. He went on to say: ‘But that does not mean that I would recommend the mining of uranium. That does not mean that I would recommend the building of nuclear power stations’.

I said: ‘What are you talking about?’ He said: The question is not the safety of the stations; it is mankind’s future and mankind’s needs and there are 2 factors. One is the hazards associated with the end products, such as the waste materials and the plutonium cycle’. He obviously shared the view of the Fox commissioners that these matters still represent a significant hazard that we are not yet sure we can control. All the ifs’- if we can control this, if we can control that and if we do something else- depend not upon the scientists but upon ordinary people and upon governments.

Mr Yates:

– It is like gunpowder?

Dr CASS:

– They depend upon the security of the societies which use this technique. Someone asked: ‘How about gunpowder?’ One could burn all the gunpowder in the world and not do terribly much harm. Nuclear power is a different order of danger. We are depending for the safety, care and protection of the whole of mankind, by means of proper regulations, upon fallible human societies. We need to protect nuclear waste for a mere 250 000 years. Who would put money on any government surviving for 200 years yet alone 250 000 years? Can we be sure that 200 years from now the government of the United States will be a safe government that is dedicated to using and caring for the nuclear power industry in the way in which the present Government is dedicated? How about some of the tinpot countries- I shall not name themaround the world which are now eager to buy this technology? We are talking nonsense.

What is the other worry? The other worry is the energy requirements. The nuclear power industry may forestall the crisis, if we are lucky, for 40 or 50 years, but what then? This is the second point that this scientist made. He said that mankind is mad because it is proceeding to use energy at a faster rate than is safe or it can produce with its present technology. The only really safe source is solar energy. To continue on this path using nuclear power to aid and abet our greed and our waste of energy resources is simply to put off the day when we will have to face the crunch. I disagree with the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth), who spoke before me. If we decline to develop nuclear power now we will more readily recognise the limitations of energy facing mankind and face the problem sooner.

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

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– I think it is worth remembering what we are actually debating. We are debating whether we should mine and export uranium and, if so, under what conditions and safeguards. We are not debating whether we should have nuclear power stations in this country. There is no such proposal. We are not debating whether we should store nuclear waste in this country. There is no such proposal. The information we have before us is the first report of the Ranger Uranium- Environmental Inquiry- the Fox report- which deals with the export of uranium and which really comes under 5 headings, namely, the dangers associated with mining and milling, the dangers associated with the operation of nuclear reactors, the dangers associated with the safe disposal of nuclear waste and the 2 key questions of terrorist activities and nuclear proliferation. The second Fox report deals not with the general problem of export but with the specific problems of the Northern Territory and has drawn attention to very serious and difficult problems concerning environmental control, respect of the rights of Aborigines and national parks. We also have before us a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on the safeguards that the Australian Government proposes to apply if we decide to export uranium.

Before I look at the disadvantages of exporting uranium I will look at some of the advantages. Firstly, although there is some difference of opinion about what the price is likely to be, at a minimum it could bring in $ 1,200m a year, which should be compared with the $800m derived at present from the wool industry and the amount of something like $2,000m derived at present from the whole mining industry. This is peculiarly important because when our Bass Strait oil runs out in the mid-1980s, if not before, we are going to face a serious balance of payments problem. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), using a rather elegant phrase, said that we could not wait to get our greasy paws on the money. If governments do not see that national resources are kept up, social services inevitably will suffer. It is the duty of a government to see to the best interests of its community. Any responsible government must do that. I think the advantages are great.

Let us turn to the problems. The first is the problem of terrorists getting hold of nuclear ex- plosives. That is truly a danger, but I think that it as been generally exaggerated. It is much more difficult for terrorists to manufacture an effective nuclear weapon than many people imagine. Nevertheless it is a danger that we must recognise. Secondly, there is the danger of nuclear proliferation, which is very serious indeed. This problem is also sometimes misrepresented. It was misrepresented most recently by the honourable member for Blaxland, who referred to an Indian nuclear explosion. There is no denying that India exploded a nuclear device in 1 974 and that at the same time a bilateral agreement between Canada and India was in force, but that has no similarity with what is being proposed now.

India is not and was not then a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the safeguards that applied to India at the time were rudimentary and did not exclude the so-called peaceful nuclear explosion; nor did the agreement with Canada apply International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. In any case, the nuclear materials used were of Indian origin and not of Canadian origin, as claimed by the honourable member for Blaxland. According to the safeguards proposed by the Prime Minister, India would not be supplied with uranium by this country. Our safeguards are very tight, and far more explicit and go far beyond what is presently applied by any other country. I think that they are a notable contribution to the safeguard situation throughout the world.

It is worth remembering that as an exporter we would have some chance of influencing the situation about nuclear safeguards. If we refuse to export we will lose that opportunity. The safeguards applied to the transfer of nuclear materials are vital to the future of this world. Further, it does not appear that by refusing to export we would have any influence on this proliferation. The Fox report was quite clear about that. By refusing to export we would have no influence. On the matter of nuclear proliferation it does not matter one way or the other whether we export. The nuclear proliferation will continue just the same. But if we become a controlled exporter we can influence significantly the nuclear safeguards throughout the world. That, to my mind, is a most important contribution that we can make to the future of the world.

The second danger mentioned is the danger of mining and milling uranium. I do not think that this danger needs to be taken too seriously. No one has made any very substantial suggestions as to the danger of the open cut mining of uranium and the subsequent milling and export of yellowcake. It is much safer, for instance, than coal mining. There is a small problem with regard to the tailings that are left behind after milling. They are radio-active and have to be disposed of. It might be worth mentioning in passing that there was a rather quaint suggestion in the second Fox report which appeared to say that these tailings, mixed with water, should be put into an excavation and that then rocks should be put on top of them. I think we should perhaps draw the attention of the Fox committee to the findings of Mr Archimedes a few thousand years ago. I should have thought that the rocks would almost inevitably sink and the water borne tailings would come to the top. That may have been a factor which the Committee did not consider.

The other factors which we have to consider in the second Fox report in respect of our mining and milling concern the environment, national parks and Aborigines. We must not under-rate rate these considerations but also we must see that they are held in balance, each given its due weight. In the planned uranium mining area in the Alligator River zone there are about 1000 Aborigines. We must, of course, see that their rights are protected. I should like to make one point about them, and I am glad to see that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) is at the table. I am informed that at the moment some of these Aboriginals have very severe alcoholism problems. I mention this now before mining starts because if we do not make it clear that that is the present position we might find a few years after mining starts that mining will be accused of creating their alcoholism problems. I should like to put this fact on the record. The reason for their present state has nothing to do with mining; it is the consequence of recent unwise social policies.

It is essential that the requirements with regard to the environment and national parks are reasonable. What is suggested in the second Fox report is the machinery, the structure, which if followed exactly would result in something like a 2 year’s delay while mining companies endeavoured to make the necessary inquiries, investigations and submissions. I believe that this is not necessary. We must see that interests are protected, but that this is done in a sensible and reasonable way. In particular, we must see that State and Federal environmental laws for uranium mining and export are coincidental. We must not have a situation where a mining company has to meet 2 separate overlapping environmental requirements. Above all, we must see that the mining companies have a clear code which they can understand and follow. Government has a duty in this regard, and I am sure that this Government will accept that duty.

The next risk is that of nuclear reactors. The present boiling water reactors are not dangerous. They are substantially safer than fossil fuel power stations. They do not blow up, as some people seem to think. Under certain circumstancesthis is very remote- they might emit some radiation. The only way in which we can really look at the risk is in statistical terms. It has been assessed by the Rasmussen Committee that people living beside a nuclear power station are 300 000 times as likely to be killed in a car accident or 8 times as likely to be killed by a thunderbolt as they are by an emission from a nuclear power station. There is a risk but it is one that must be kept in proportion.

In any case, is this an issue on which we should make a decision? If the government of a country, knowing the risks, such as there are, of nuclear power stations, decides that it is in the economic and social interests of its people to import uranium for a nuclear power generation system, have we the right to deny that government the uranium? Surely that is a decision that should and must be made by the responsible government concerned. It is true there are dangers in respect of nuclear reactors. The fast breeder reactors certainly have unsolved environmental problems. The reprocessing and the subsequent disposal of waste also has unsolved, but not necessarily insolvable, problems. Australia has 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the easily accessible world uranium sources. If, by denying our uranium to the world, we succeed in creating an artificial shortage of uranium, we will surely accelerate the introduction of a plutonium economy- fast breeder reactors and reprocessing. The fast breeder reactor uses uranium about 30 times as efficiently as an existing reactor. Countries denied uranium will surely look for other ways to use what they have more economically. There is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I fear that many people who campaign against the export of uranium will achieve exactly the opposite of what they hope to achieve.

We have some moral decisions to make. I should like to put them to the House. The first moral question we have to ask is: Have we the right to decide for other countries whether they should use nuclear power generation, or is that a decision for the governments of the countries concerned? The second question is: Have we the right to neglect to use our power to improve nuclear safeguards? The third moral question we must answer is whether this country with 0.4 per cent of the world’s population has the right to deny the rest of the world access to 25 per cent of its most important energy source. These are most important questions. I submit the answer to the three questions is an unequivocal no. A responsible government must make the decision to make our uranium available to the world. It is true that it would be in our national interest to do so. However, it would also be in the interests of the rest of the world. Therefore, I strongly recommend that we should mine and export our uranium.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) joined this debate this afternoon and once again displayed his impetuous and almost vandalistic attitude and his desire to consume the finite resources of this country. There is no one in a greater hurry than the Leader of the National Country Party to get stuck into using up our uranium resources. The fact of the matter is that the Acting Prime Minister has continuously pre-empted public debate. Public debate, when it is all said and done, is just not restricted to 3 hours of parliamentary debate. But the people of this country are entitled to know and to be exposed to the pros and cons of the many matters that have been the subject of deliberation by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.

The Government has done very little to promote public debate in this country. The Government has brought on this debate very hurriedly before the Parliament goes into recess so that it can say that there has been public debate. No doubt there will be some early governmental action after this debate is concluded. The publicis being left in the dark.

Mr Yates:

– No.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That happens to be the situation. The contempt with which the view of the public generally is held is probably best demonstrated by the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) actually made a statement, which is the subject of this debate, one day before the Fox report was presented. That in itself in my view represents a pre-emption.

Shortly stated, the Prime Minister’s statement of 25 May was designed to placate; it was designed to dampen rising public concern. The Prime Minister made ten or eleven points in his statement. One was that His Honour Justice Fox was to be appointed adviser to the Prime Minister on nuclear and associated matters. Criteria for uranium supply were laid out for our consideration. Australia was to be selective about the countries to which uranium was exported. Criteria were to be applied to the non-nuclear weapons states. Uranium would be supplied to them only if they were parties to the NonProliferation Treaty. Uranium would be supplied to nuclear weapon states only if they gave assurances that the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards standards would be maintained. Then there was a provision that once uranium left Australia it had to be covered by the Agency’s safeguards in agreements to export. There were to be bilateral agreements with countries wishing to import Australian uranium to ensure no diversification to military purposes and to allow Australia to cease supply if the Agency safeguards were breached. These safeguards are to apply for the full life of the material. Fallback safeguards are to be included in the bilateral agreements if the nonproliferation Treaty safeguards cease to apply.

This, in essence, is the outline of the proposals put by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). There are other proposals which time will not permit me to mention. I have a few questions to ask about these matters. Does the Prime Minister’s statement cover existing contracts? In his statement, the Prime Minister pointed out:

New uranium exports will take place under carefully considered and responsible conditions.

Will this policy apply to the contracts already negotiated? After all, we are told that at this time 8000 tonnes are contracted but not delivered. Do the safeguards effectively complement the nonproliferation Treaty already described as inadequate? I do not think the contention which I am making is unique or isolated. The nonproliferation Treaty is said to be inadequate and ineffective. After all, His Honour stated:

The non-proliferation Treaty provides only an illusion of protection.

I am interested to observe that neither the Department of Defence nor the Department of Foreign Affairs made any submission to the Fox inquiry in relation to this important consideration, that is, the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the non-proliferation Treaty.

Mr Yates:

-That is a good point.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I think it is a good point. I raise it objectively because, if anybody is capable and competent to provide useful advice about this vital matter, it is one of those 2 departments. There is no point in being enthusiastic about the production of uranium for power and the resultant benefits to the world if we do not tie up the non-proliferation factor. It seems to me that by either design or omission Fox has been recreant to his responsibility or the Government has been recreant to its responsibility by not ensuring that the Departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs gave evidence on this important matter.

Then, I ask: What sanctions can Australia realistically expect to impose in order to enforce safeguards policy? If these policies, which the Prime Minister has outlined as Government policy, are not given effect to, what do we do? What are the sanctions? I suppose that once countries with a similar philosophy to ours would have sent in a gunboat. In any event, this is a Government which believes in sanctions. We have been talking about the Industrial Relations Bureau. What are the sanctions to apply in relation to the breaching of an undertaking in this respect? Do we stop trade with the countries concerned? Do we refuse to export uranium? Do we break off diplomatic relations? Frankly, I do not think any of those alternatives are acceptable or effective. We cannot afford to stop trade. In any event, if safeguards are ignored after export, the damage is done. I describe the situation in terminology which the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) is certain to understand: The horse would have bolted and dire consequences would follow.

If we fulfil safeguards and do not export to countries which have dealt with non-signatories to the non-proliferation Treaty and which are developing plutonium economies, we must bypass the United States of America which has sold enriched uranium to India, and also Japan which, through its Australian Ambassador this week called on Australia to ignore the policy of the Carter Administration against fast breeder reactors which Japan is rapidly developing. Then there is the question of physical protection. Mr Justice Fox concluded:

An attempt by a small, well trained and armed group to take over a nuclear installation could have a good chance of success.

He goes on further:

There is a very real risk that the opportunity and routine for nuclear blackmail will develop in time. . . .

Recently, as is now generally known, an American college student and a British newspaper developed ways of constructing nuclear weapons. All they required was plutonium to complete their bombs. Unfortunately, in America alone, over 9000 tonnes of plutonium was listed as unaccounted for last year by the General Accounting Office. In addition, a United States based nuclear brokerage house has confirmed that, in 1976, it sold to foreign buyers 1 12 pounds of plutonium- enough for 3 large bombs -in 2 separate transactions.

The belief that bilateral agreements will prevent the proliferation of the nuclear club is naive and not based on known facts. Even if bilateral agreements are made and if importing nations use Australian uranium for peaceful purposes, Australia has no guarantee that this will not simply replace uranium diverted to explosive weapon making. There is nothing in the Prime Minister’s catalogue of assurances which safeguards this position at all. In other words, we could be supplying uranium for bona fide and non-belligerent purposes but that uranium could be taking the place of uranium which could be used for those undesirable purposes. The decision of the Nixon administration in 1973 to allow private enterprise to take over from the Atomic Energy Commission meant that in 1974, when the United States Atomic Energy Commission announced it was to cease selling uranium, it artifically forced prices to skyrocket.

As a result the bottom dropped out of the United States domestic market and 2 United States corporations, General Electric Co. and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, face losses said to be in region of $500m each. For these corporations only the proliferation of nuclear reactors can save their huge investments. Thus, a grey market has developed. In addition, both West Germany and France, with nuclear technology comparable with that of the United States have begun their own sales campaign. France is to supply Pakistan with a $25 billion reactor and West Germany is to supply Brazil with an $8 billion reactor capable of separating plutonium from other waste products.

The decision of President Carter on 7 April this year to halt the development of a plutonium economy has not stopped France or West Germany, nor has it stopped Iran’s search for a nuclear reactor. The essence of the problem is not only the halting of fast breeder development but also the complete cessation of the use of nuclear fuel because plutonium- admitted by all to be a greater risk to world peace- can be made from the waste products of water cooled reactors. Time magazine has alleged that Israel has 13 nuclear bombs, made using plutonium allegedly delivered by the Central Intelligence Agency from the United States stockpile. By the end of this year 5 more military dictatorships will possess nuclear weapons. I refer to Spain, South Korea, Taiwan, the Argentine and South Africa. Who wants to leave the destiny of mankind in the hands of unelected and undemocratic national leaders?

The safeguard issue appears to be a cover for the clash between the 2 commercial interests which stand to gain or to lose the most, that is, the uranium miners and the reactor manufacturers. The miners want high prices for their product while the nuclear reactor manufacturers must boost world sales to recoup their investments. To do this they must first maintain low prices for enriched uranium and, secondly, they must stop the development of fast breeder technology which cuts into their market. The fifth point of the Prime Minister’s statement, requiring that all nuclear material be kept under full safeguards for the full life of the material, by implication requires that this protection will continue for 250 000 years. We know all about the arrangements under which the storage is to take place. Subterranean salt beds are to be used and there is to be a vitrification process, but can honourable members imagine somebody standing guard over these pits for a quarter of a million years? Can we really be certain that deposits so dangerous to the world will be effectively safeguarded? Notwithstanding the potential reprocessing of waste products to develop plutonium, the issue of storing waste products is of great importance. The Fox report stated:

There is at present no generally accepted means by which high level waste can be permanently isolated from the environment and remain sa te for very long periods.

The fact of the matter is that there are many matters unresolved and which stand in doubt. I believe that the policy of the Labor Party, which is being formulated progressively but which still represents sensible objectivity, ought to be looked at very carefully by the Australian people. We advocate that until the questions that I have asked, and many others which I could ask if there were more time, are answered there ought to be a moratorium over the exploitation of uranium.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Mr MARTYR:
Swan

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I have only one thing to say about uranium and that is: Dig it up and sell it as soon as possible. I will give my reasons for saying that but before I do I must say that the Opposition today has made one of the most puerile contributions to this debate that I have ever heard. The honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) offered only one assertion, that is, that Labor had led the field in the marketing and safeguarding of uranium. That is absolute nonsense. What it did was lead the retreat from responsibility and that is the truth which everyone in this House knows. The Opposition held up uranium mining for no real purpose at all. During Labor’s last 2 years in office, when it could have been doing something about it, it did nothing. It had the opportunity but the Lefties, as always, had Labor very solidly by the important parts and it was tied up. They tied up the Labor Government so much that nothing happened and we are hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain. The Australian economy has lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to this delay.

The Opposition when in Government was able to find a lifebelt in the Fox inquiry to stop a row within its own Party about the marketing of uranium. That was another $5m or so down the drain and further delay. In 1975 we came into office and found ourselves faced with the difficulties of the Fox inquiry but we were prepared to go on with it. I have seen one or two disrespectful accounts of the Fox inquiry and one of them seems to sum up the 2 volumes of the Fox report in one simple sentence: Your attitude to uranium mining depends on what sort of person you are. I think that is a fair comment on the whole report. Certainly the report went into a lot of detail, technicalities and so on, but I do not think it has really advanced the argument on whether or not we should dig up and sell uranium any further than if it had never been published.

In any case, the Fox inquiry does not seem to have found any real reason why we should not go on with uranium mining and I think that the Opposition is really wasting its time trying to hold up the exercise. Certainly there has been a hue and cry in the community, largely started by the same gang of pro-communist agitators who are doing a splendid job of wrecking the trade union movement and trying while they are at it to destroy this country. Unfortunately, and this always happens, good people are fooled and drawn in. That sort of thing has happened many times before. We can all recollect the story of Chicken Little who panicked the whole farmyard by crying that the sky was falling. That is the sort of thing to which the Opposition has been contributing. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) in his contribution cried Jonah and cried that the sky was falling.

On this side of the House we know that it hardly seems possible that the honourable member for Blaxland, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) and the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) can agree with the extremist views of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass). The first 3 honourable - members to whom I referred went to Japan and saw there the need of the Japanese people to acquire uranium in order to provide necessary power. They know that in Japan at least there are no fundamental objections. I am quite certain that they feel, as we do, that the best thing we can do is dig it up and sell it. The only difference between those members I mentioned, and I will include the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) because I think he has a lot of commonsense on this matter, and us is not in relation to digging it up and selling it but that the Opposition would like the Government to do the digging and selling. That is really the only fundamental difference between us. We saw this sort of dichotomy in the Opposition earlier this week but I suppose that on the final day of our proceedings the less said about that the better.

There is a whole range of argument in favour of nuclear energy but that is not the real nub of today’s debate. It is relevant, certainly, and I will come back to it a little later on. The fundamental point today is whether we should dig and sell uranium. No essential argument against this has been advanced in either of the Fox reports. Certainly no argument against it has been advanced today by the Opposition. As I said before, the only difference between us is in who should dig and sell uranium. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has advanced strict- perhaps too strict- safeguards for the export of uranium, so there is no need to hesitate on the digging and selling. Let us get on with it. It is in our interests to do so.

At the moment we share a method to feed nuclear reactors at least until the next ice age; that is, to use a new and very abundant fuel, abundant throughout the world and in Australia. That fuel is thorium, an element somewhat lighter than uranium. Unfortunately, thorium alone will not do. Uranium is needed to prime the pump and start the process. Australia has 2 1 per cent of the world’s proven uranium reserves and probably a lot more than that. Prospectors are not going to say anything about the areas they have marked out for fear of difficulties with either State or Federal governments. They want the whole market situation to be made clear before they come forward and so the reserves are probably greater than we thought. In any case, a few decades from now nobody will need uranium because we will be using thorium reactors. But for the next 2 or 3 decades uranium can and will save people from starvation which would otherwise be inevitable.

That is the basic argument for digging and selling uranium, I suppose, but part of today’s debate certainly involves arguments for and against nuclear power. As far as I am concerned, there are no moral arguments against uranium, just as there are no moral arguments against coal, electricity or rubber. It is hard enough today to live by the 10 commandments without inventing a few more. There are very good arguments for nuclear development and I think that some of the referendums in the United States have made clear that the people there are not the slightest bit concerned. A couple of weeks ago, Jimmy Carter addressed the United States Congress and said something of great importance. He said that the energy crisis was the greatest crisis in the history of the United States, short of the crisis of war. He said that the United States had been hurt by the crisis and that Japan was in even worse straits. The real sufferers, however, are the inhabitants of the under-developed countries. Three billion out of four billion people who live on this planet live in abject poverty. Without energy they cannot pump water, they cannot irrigate their fields, they cannot even obtain energy rich fertilisers. Sooner or later- and it might be sooner- they face starvation. The use of nuclear energy in the developed countries could indirectly help the developing countries, principally by increasing the amount of oil available for their use. Oil is needed for the small machinery which is of vital necessity in the poor countries.

The richer countries, the developed countries, could and should first of all use less energy. President Carter absolutely outlined that the first emphasis of the United States must be on economising on energy as well as using more effective ways to employ it. But he then said, after paying due respect to the need for using a lot of coal, that they could not solve the problem without using nuclear reactors. So the very person the Opposition has been quoting with some approval this afternoon has made it quite plain that nuclear reactors are necessary to solve the energy problem. He wants to reduce the period of licensing in the United States of America from 10 years to 3 years because the energy is needed now. By the deployment of nuclear reactors, 16 million barrels of oil a day could be saved. This represents more than one-third of the production of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. If this can be done and if nuclear reactors can be used as part of a means to provide energy, oil prices might no longer rise. They might even fall. The world has become very small. The industrial revolution is spreading over the face of the earth. The first desirable effect is the saving of lives everywhere. This has given rise to a population explosion; so much so that it is now a certainty that in the year 2000 there will be at least 7 billion souls on this globe, provided they do not starve to death first. They do not need to starve to death if we can help to solve the energy problem by the export of our uranium.

I want to say a few words about objections to nuclear power. All the answers to any objections I have ever seen are in a book which is available in the Parliamentary Library. It is called The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear and is written by Professor Beckman. I recommend it to those Opposition members who are genuinely interested in some arguments for nuclear power, instead of promoting the sort of literature that they seem to be quoting constantly against nuclear power.

Dr Jenkins:

– Is that an academic or a commercial publication?

Mr MARTYR:

– The honourable member can make his own judgment about that. Professor Beckman has answered most of the objections that have been put forward by the Friends of the Earth and others. He says that uranium is much safer than hydro-electric power because the collapse of dams in various parts of the world has killed thousands. Big industrial nuclear reactors, of which there are more than 60 in the United States today, have not harmed a single person. Nuclear reactors are cleaner and safer than coal. Many people have been killed in mine accidents throughout the world, including here in Australia. The point was made earlier by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) in regard to the pollution produced by the burning of coal. It has hurt perhaps even a greater number of people. Nuclear reactors are safe when properly controlled and at least in the United States they are safe. I concede to the Friends of the Earth their right to speak up for a pure environment. I sometimes wonder about methods they use but no one can deny them their right to speak up if they feel there is some difficulties we are not handling properly. They really should support nuclear reactors if they are genuine in their desire to cut down pollution because they are the cleanest method of producing electricity.

Many more objections have been raised, some of them by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass), and some by other honourable members. If they are really interested in the subject, I offer them the challenge to read this work which contains, I think, all of the answers for which they would be looking. It would be quite unfair and improper of me before sitting down not to pay some sort of a tribute to Dr Edward Teller who has had such a great deal to do with the development of nuclear energy since its inception. He, too, has had his moral qualms. Honourable members might recollect that many years ago there was a tremendous nuclear debate in the United States. It was exactly the same sort of debate that we seem to be having in this country in the last couple of years. The only difference is that the American debate took place about 27 years ago. To be completely candid, this is why I am so appalled that we have had to go on with the exercise of the Fox report. All of this work has been done before. It has been done very effectively and very thoroughly. For some reason that is peculiar to Australians, we want to go over the whole trauma and the whole exercise again and therefore waste millions of dollars and cause further delay.

In any case, Dr Teller was retained by the American Government to give a professional opinion as to whether it ought to pursue nuclear energy in depth. After examining everythingincluding all the material covered in the Fox report-all those years ago, he gave what I believe to be and what I think time has shown to be the correct advice to the American Government. I think all of us, particularly those of us in what we call the anti-communist world, have reason to be grateful to Dr Teller. Apart from the enormous industrial development and the enormous benefits that civilisation has gained from nuclear power, there is no question that the United States has done the job in preserving the balance of nuclear power in war-like terms. It has done so because it was given good advice by Dr Teller. Dr Teller at least is honest enough to admit that nobody can answer finally all of the conundrums on any new system of power.

Perhaps the words of Dr Teller provide a good note upon which to conclude my speech. Recently he addressed the National Press Club in a humble, genuine and sincere way. He concluded with what he called a purely personal reminiscence from his early childhood. He talked about a number of children- he says that we are all children- who escaped and went out to see the world. They came to the crossroads and found a sign. On one side it said: ‘This leads to nowhere’. On the other side it said: ‘This leads to everywhere’. He says that the children chose the latter course. They got into a lot of trouble but they got home. I think that is the message for us today. We begin this long track of going somewhere by digging up our uranium and selling it for the benefit of Australia and for the benefit of the underprivileged people of this world.

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

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-The release of the Government’s safeguards policy and the second Ranger uranium inquiry report have enabled the Parliament to discuss in depth the conditions under which Australian uranium is to be mined and whether it is to be exported. In my view the issues have been largely oversimplified and polarised by the minority groups which are emotionally or financially involved so that the Australian public, in effect, has been asked to choose between 2 extremes- unlimited nuclear power for the world or bans on uranium mining. In my view, this type of choice is neither necessary or helpful, nor does it provide anywhere near the best solution.

The first Ranger report expressed the view that total renunciation of the intention to supply uranium is undesirable. The commissioners simply could not convince themselves that the serious problem of nuclear weapons proliferation could be assisted materially by leaving Australian uranium permanently in the ground. In spite of this, there are still some who believe that uranium bans will help to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and that the world must now give up the option of nuclear power. It is seriously proposed in some quarters that future shortages of oil and gas in this century can be met entirely by the application of solar power and energy conservation alone. I must confess that I do not share that view.

The turning point in the Australian debate has been the recent announcement of President Carter’s nuclear energy policy. It should be made clear to Australians that this policy in effect means firstly, nuclear power will not be abolished world-wide; secondly, the demand for yellowcake will increase because of restrictions on United States fast breeder reactors and reprocessing plants. This means to other countries an increased input of about 45 per cent; thirdly, if recycling of plutonium and uranium is reduced, ample enrichment facilities will be needed; and fourthly, a system of international waste disposal centres probably will be required. I think that is inevitable. An important assumption of the new American policy is that the majority of world uranium resources is held and can be controlled conjointly by Australia, Canada and the United States. A moratorium on Australian uranium exports would isolate Australia from the world councils. It would encourage the proliferation of fast breeder reactors and reprocessing plants and would lead to accelerated uranium exploration and development all over the world. It has a great potential for maximising the effectiveness of nuclear safeguards. I find it rather odd that there was hardly any notice taken in Australia of the results of a conference on the transfer of nuclear technology at Persepolis in late April. A number of points were made at the conference, and among them were the following:

  1. The essential point is that most countries look upon nuclear power as the only route to energy and independence. For those countries which do not have large deposits of uranium this independence will come only with the breeder reactor. The reprocessing or further processing of isotopes is essential to the operation of the breeder, no matter what the cost. Hence any suggestion that reprocessing and recycling are unacceptable strikes at the very root of this motivation for adopting nuclear power, and naturally is reviewed with alarm.
  2. Although President Carter has concluded that the United States can afford to defer the breeder, many other countries cannot afford such a course. They view the breeder as an imminent reality and this view is supported by the rapid progress in liquid metal fast breeder reactor development in Europe. They want to make firm plans for a nuclear future now. The national investment required to establish a nuclear breeder capability is far too large a development to be made if its ultimate objective is in doubt.

Other points were:

  1. Many feel that the restriction of reprocessing is not an effective deterrent to nuclear weapons proliferation. This leads to two concerns: That restriction of reprocessing is far too high a price to pay for a marginally effective safeguard that reliance on that restriction will blunt the effort toward more effective means of proliferation control.
  2. The emphasis in the Carter statement on exploring other breeder types and other fuel cycles tends to destroy the credibility of the technical basis for the statement. There are no fuel cycles which are consistent with breeding and which provide an effective technological barrier to proliferation.
  3. Many nations feel that reprocessing of spent fuel is the only feasible route to safe ultimate disposal of radioactive wastes. Some are legally committed to that route.

We ought to grasp the reality which faces many nations in the Western world, particularly Japan. People seem to assume that now that Britain has vast resources off the North Sea she is selfsufficient. We ought to cast that assumption aside because it is not a fact. This is one of the realities that we have to face up to constructively in this debate. There is a need to work out cooperatively with the United States and Canada a governmental safeguards policy which must be detailed. If safeguards requirements are to be continually improved the Government must be responsive to outside suggestions. For example, the message should be made even clearer to uranium buyers that any nuclear explosion set off by countries other than the recognised nuclear powers- that is, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, China and France- will result in immediate and permanent cessation of uranium supplies from Canada, Australia and the United States.

Rightly, Australian policy ought to call for a continued system of bilateral safeguards if for any reason the system of IAEA safeguards lapses. This would cover a situation where, for instance, a uranium buyer ceased to be a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There seems no reason, however, for Australia to contemplate selling uranium to any present nonsignatories of the NPT, although loopholes exist in the new policy for both France and China, while new safeguards for other non-signatories are foreshadowed. Compulsory membership of the NPT by uranium consumers should be agreed to without delay by Canada, Australia and the United States. This country’s greatest influence as a major potential supplier of uranium is not with small nuclear powers such as Brazil, Argentina, Pakistan and Korea but with important customers such as West Germany, Italy and Great Britain. Small countries conceivably could obtain uranium outside Canada, the United States or Australia for nuclear weapons manufacture. The European countries I have mentioned as well as Japan must eventually look to the suppliers’ group to provide fuel for their large nuclear power programs. Since these consumer countries are also capable of transferring crucial nuclear technology, such as enrichment plants or reprocessing plants, to sensitive countries, Australia can have an important say in restricting such transfers where necessary. Take the West German contract with Brazil. Had West Germany been reliant on Australia I think that our policy could have had a marked effect on the West German attitude.

Perhaps the greatest danger connected with any safeguards policy is an official overconfidence in its application. Events have prevented to a large degree the hope of nuclear weapons proliferation being entirely stopped. The process may be slowed down with suitable safeguards but no great reliability can be placed on them, especially the present IAEA inspection and accounting system. Honourable members ought to know that the 2 nations of which I am aware that have refused inspections, particularly with respect to the reprocessing structure, have been Great Britain and Russia. The role of South Africa as a possible willing supplier of uranium for nuclear weapons manufacture cannot and ought not to be ruled out in any evaluation of Australian and United States safeguards policy. This consideration alone makes total bans on Australian uranium rather futile.

How seriously and with what expertise is the Government studying new ways of improving accounting, containment and surveillance methods? How can Australian yellowcake be traced and checked throughout a country’s nuclear fuel cycle? What about the problem of material unaccounted for? Will the export of Australian uranium free other largely unsafeguarded supplies? Unlike the policies of the United States and Canada, the current Australian policy is not pressing future uranium customers to renounce plutonium recycling via reprocessing or breeder reactors. Although American fears of plutonium misuse seem to be amply justified, it is possibly unrealistic at this time to expect countries such as Japan to give up the plutonium option. I do not think they will. Furthermore, the U.S.S.R., France, Britain and West Germany are well advanced in fast breeder programs, particularly Great Britain and France. The world cannot yet afford to discard a large proportion of its uranium which would be used as plutonium in breeders. I think that it was Flowers in his report who intimated that Britain should not commercially run down its experimental fast breeder reactor but ought to keep its options open and keep one in the pipeline.

The plutonium argument brings up the broader question of whether the interests of Australia, Canada and the United States are similar or even identical. Clearly they are not since the United States is expected to use 50 per cent of the world ‘s uranium production as well as export a much smaller proportion of it. Available literature indicates that United States uranium reserves appear more expensive to develop than those of Canada and Australia, so an underlying United States aim maybe to keep the world yellowcake prices as low as possible. The danger for Australia in the Carter policy is that the United States will encourage excess foreign uranium production, such as the developing of the Pancontinental and Ranger mines simultaneously, for the purpose of delaying reprocessing for plutonium. At the same time, however, the fall in world demand will lead to excess uranium, the price of which then may once again slip down to $10 to $15 a lb yellowcake for a long-term contract. The United States would dearly like to stockpile cheap Australian uranium for future use against the market and possibly this can be averted by strict sequential development.

I conclude on this note: The other danger of being too closely aligned with American policy is that some pressure may be exerted on Australia to export uranium to those smaller countries threatening to set up their own reprocessing plants. President Carter believes that an assurance of uranium supply will deter reprocessing. However, a better way to slow the spread of reprocessing is by restricting technology transfer. When we talk about a reduction in this area we put far too much emphasis on the raw material side and not enough on the technology side. It is the technology factor that is important, not whether a country uses imported raw material. This can best be approached by Australia exporting uranium mainly to technological countries, as I described them earlier. We also know that the major nuclear nations generally need uranium for power production. The same cannot necessarily be said for the smaller countries anxious to obtain a reprocessing plant. I merely indicate to the House at this stage that Australia, with the potential it has, would be wise to keep its options on this issue wide open.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-This is the second debate which we have had on uranium in the past 2 months. It amazes me that most of the Opposition members approach this subject with gloom. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) accused the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) of wanting to rush into the export of Australian uranium. We, on this side of the House, are concerned with the delay which is taking place in the export of this commodity. We favour some early action by the Government. Australia is in the fortunate position of having 2 1 per cent of the world ‘s known uranium reserves. This will stand us in very good economic stead as the years go by. As a member of the Government Parties Trade and Resources Committee it has been possible for me to visit many of the uranium mining projects in this country. Most of them are situated in remote areas. The development of the uranium industry will provide expansion of employment in these areas. They are remote from any big cities or towns. Employment opportunities will be great when mining gets underway.

Markets for Australian uranium exist in the United States of America, Canada, West Germany, Japan and, possibly, Great Britain. If we do not get on with the job of digging the uranium out of our earth and marketing it, great opportunities in this field could be lost. Already, while we are discussing this subject in Canberra, uranium producers from South Africa are in the United States of America endeavouring to sell their uranium to that country. Many Opposition members have put forward the great dangers which exist in the mining and marketing of uranium. The honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) said that the United States has been using uranium for power purposes for many years. The United States Navy has been nuclearpowered for 2 1 to 25 years. There has never been an accident. Some of the States are 35 per cent nuclear-powered and some of them are 15 per cent nuclear-powered. This has done away with pollution. Nuclear power is clean. It has provided the United States with another source of energy. Great Britain itself generates 15 per cent of its power by nuclear means.

Nuclear power is on the increase. There has not been one loss of life in the world since the beginning of the nuclear industry. No doubt, great precautions have to be taken by those handling the nuclear product when it is providing power for the sources I have mentioned. Great care has been exercised so far and there is no doubt that those countries which are handling this source of power take these precautions. We in Australia do not have to fear loss of life from the mining of uranium. Some people have mentioned radon gas. Most of the mines in Australia will be opencut mines and there should be no danger from this source. The environmentalists in this country have nothing to fear. Members of the Government Parties Trade and Resources Committee visited the Northern Territory and Western Australia. We came away very impressed with what mining companies are doing in the restoration of the earth which they have uncovered to mine minerals and uranium.

One matter which concerns me if we do not get busy and market this product is the fact that experiments are being conducted in countries overseas to produce uranium from sea water. In the past 2 weeks, an article appeared in the Press. It stated:

Japan’s Ministry of International Trade and Industry has announced what it calls ‘a great scientific feat’ in recovering uranium from sea-water.

Two private Japanese concerns . . . have been conducting experiments for MITI -

The power body in Japan- over the past 2 years and now claim the first successful experiments whereby uranium has been recovered. A total of 149 milligrams of yellowcake have been recovered from SO tons of sea-water based on a uranium absorption method developed by the companies using titanic acid in the process.

There is proof that this method can be used economically. We could lose sales of uranium which is available in Australia. We should get on with the job, get uranium out of the ground and market it. This country produces 70 per cent of its petroleum requirements. It has to import 30 per cent from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf. Our own source of supply is diminishing at the rate of about 10 per cent a year. It is estimated, as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) mentioned, that by 1985 we will be paying $2.5 billion to $3 billion to import our fuel from overseas. Therefore, it is essential that we get on with the marketing of uranium so that we can offset the balance of trade which will occur in those years.

A lot has been said about the second report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. It is very similar to the first one. It reiterates the judgment made in the first report that a delay in plans for full scale mining is a serious option. Hence it recommends:

Calculated caution and sequential development, which apparently would not conflict with economic calculations of the complex factors of supply of and demand for fissionable material for nuclear reactors. It is of the opinion that, apart from existing small commitments, Australia cannot enter the world market on a significant scale before the early 1980s. Expansion of the mining operations from the Ranger to the Jabiluka and Koongarra deposits in the region and to other parts of Australia, based on experience acquired through cautious beginnings, will reduce the impact on the physical environment and allow for adjustments to be made in time, if need be, in relation with the Aboriginal community. Deliberate strategies strongly recommended by the Commission are the immediate creation of the Kakadu National Park in the same region which would protect for all time lands that are of great traditional significance to the Aborigine, and the direct involvement of Aborigines, in the demarcation and subsequent management of the Park.

The report enters into considerable technical and administrative detail on the environmental controls and monitoring arrangements it proposes should mining proceed. It even recommends that the landscape setting proposed in the environmental impact statement prepared by the Ranger mining interests be substantially altered. It recognises, however, that the Ranger plans were prepared with conscientious concern. It says explicitly that large scale uranium mining would be highly profitable for Australia. It recommends government participation in the marketing of uranium and offers a number of options in the form of statutory controls, noting at the same time the value of freely operating competitive market forces.

The worst feature of it is that it condones delay and states that we could defer the mining of uranium from two to five years. The report recommends that a national park be created at the Alligator River and ore bodies be separated from the national parks, that they be taken outside the parks. The report makes great play on Aboriginal land rights. In our tour of Western Australia and of this East Alligator River area we did not see any Aborigines. We saw Aborigines when we got to the main towns but in these mining areas we did not see any Aborigines. Apparently the do-gooders and perhaps Friends of the Earth are inciting Aborigines to go out into the mining areas, camp there and suggest that the areas are sacred Aboriginal land. This is a problem that we will have to overcome.

It was good to hear the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) speak in this House on 24 May when he stated clearly that nuclear safeguards have been under the closest and most careful consideration from the moment that the Government took over the Treasury reins. He made it clear that there was international concern to establish a framework of control for nuclear safeguards and that consultations had taken place with the United States of America, Canada and other countries. This Government is determined that Australia should play an active part with other countries in the search for and achievement of joint solutions. We are going to market uranium. There is a responsibility on Australia to see that safeguards are taken in regard to it because the whole world will be watching our operation. It is essential that we see that these safeguards are taken.

The Government will impose strict conditions on the overseas use of Australian uranium and will carefully screen importers before releasing it. These conditions will cover the entire civil nuclear industries of the importing countries and ensure that uranium meant for peaceful uses is not diverted to military or explosive purposes. The measures include: careful selection of customer countries; the application of international safeguards to verify that materials supplied for peaceful purposes are not misused; the establishment of additional safeguards through bilateral agreements and active involvement by Australia in international efforts to upgrade safeguards. Let us get on with the job. Let us dig our uranium out of the ground. Let us market it because these safeguards mentioned by the Prime Minister will control our export operations.

Mr CHIPP:
Hotham

– I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to speak for the fourth time on this question. I was not going to rise because I did not want to preclude anybody else from speaking but I understand that the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) and the Government have provided ample time for the debate today and tonight. For that I am personally grateful. I have heard every speech so far in this debate and I believe it is probably one of the best debates of its kind that have been conducted in this Parliament for many years. There has been very little attempt at political point scoring. I have vigorously disagreed with some of the arguments and agreed with others. But I think that is the sort of place this ought to be, where we can have that disagreement and vigorous attack on policies rather than on personalities. An amendment in my name is before the House on this question. It reads:

That the following words be added to the motion: and that the House is of the opinion that there should be a moratorium of at least 2 years on the mining and exporting of uranium, as mentioned in the Fox Report, to allow sufficient time for public debate, as recommended by the Fox Report, and for further research into the risks involved and possible future energy sources.

I shall certainly not be calling for a division on that amendment because of the obvious positions of the 2 political sides. I have not heard any member of the Liberal or National Country Parties agree with that amendment. Therefore one would hardly be hopeful of support for the amendment from those quarters. The Australian Labor Party, because of its structure, as I understand it, has a policy on the mining of uranium which would preclude any parliamentary members of the Labor Party from now voting for such an amendment, although by the speeches one hears from members of the Labor Party there is obviously a great number of them- perhaps half or more- who would not only agree with the thrust of my amendment but who would want to go a lot further. If I called for a division I would only be grandstanding and would embarrass terribly the seconder of my amendment. There is no point to that at all so I shall not be calling for a division on it. My stance on this question is well known. I am not against the mining, milling or selling of uranium. I am not against nuclear energy being used in the world; what I am against is its being used now and our uranium being sold until the proper safeguards and control of wastes have been demonstrated to us by scientists and by the technologists, and until proper control and regulation can take place. I am not persuaded that we have been so told by the experts. At the risk of being tedious I want to read into the record of this debate some extracts from the first Fox report. On page 1 85 it states:

The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war.

That is a categoric, unequivocal and unambiguous sentence. That, in any report, ought to make every member of the House regard this as a serious matter, as I am sure every member of the House does. I shall deal with safeguards in a moment. On page 25 the report states:

Nineteen countries -

This applied when the report was written; there are more now- have nuclear power stations operating at 3 1 December 1 975. Another seven had power reactors under construction. Another six have them on order.

These figures are now out of date. All the numbers mentioned have been increased. I do not want unnecessarily to give offence to any country with which Australia enjoys friendly relations. Looking at some of those countries that have nuclear reactors on order and considering that they are going to have the facility of a nuclear reactor are enough to make any honourable member’s hair curl in view of the calibre of government and morality in those countries.

It is also interesting to look at some of the types of nuclear reactors some of these haircurling countries have on order. As I understand it- I do not completely understand the situation because it is a technical matter- there are basically 2 types of reactor that a country can use. One is an American reactor which is light, which performs the function of creating electricity or energy but from which it is difficult or impossible to make a nuclear bomb. There is a heavier reactor, made in Canada and other countries, which is more expensive, more efficient, less economic but nevertheless has the capacity of making a nuclear weapon. It is fascinating to know that none of the hair-curling countries have opted for the non-bomb-producing light reactor; significantly, they have all opted for the other one. If we are going to discuss safeguards, I think it is well to bear in mind that the honourable gentlemen on the Government side who are advocating open slather on uranium might be pure, might be altruistic and might be trusting in this particular area; but, having been a student of international relations for some time, I say that some of those countries do not merit my trust to have the most dangerous weapon in the hands of man ever since man came to this planet. I am not against the use of nuclear energy but I am against its use until the dangers have been solved.

Mr Yates:

– Will the honourable gentleman please tell us what countries he is worried about.

Mr CHIPP:

-I have just explained to the honourable gentleman that for reasons of courtesy, which I would have thought he would be the first person in the world to understand, he being one of the most courteous members of the House, I do not choose to name them, but I shall have a private conversation with the honourable member later if he so chooses. These are the 3 reasons why I have adopted this stance. I agree that the arguments put on the other side of the House today are persuasive and that one must listen to them. But I think that with a thing like this you have to make a decision. You cannot make it go halfway. The answer either has to be yes or no. Do we mine and sell it or do we not? I have come down on the latter side.

On the dangers of radiation, the Commissioners say at pages 108-9 of the report:

Apart from rapidly fatal effects (within days) of high doses, the major consequences of radiation are cancer -

They did not say ‘may be cancer’; the major consequences are cancer- which may occur some years after the individual has been exposed and gene mutations which may appear in subsequent generations.

That is the one sentence in the report that really bothers me because that makes it not an economic question. That makes it a moral question. The decision we take in this Parliament or the decision that is taken in the Cabinet room is not simply an economic question. It is a moral question, because the consequences of that action, according to the Fox report, are that gene mutations might occur and appear in subsequent generations. I am not an expert on the mutation of genes but as I understand it, some genes, when exposed to radioactivity, can be passively mutated and then passed on to a generation or 2 generations, and 2 generations from now children could be born with the passively mutated gene manifesting itself. Those children could be born with hideous congenital malformations. That is not the honourable member for Hotham saying that because he does not know anything about it; it is the Fox report. The report says that such a suggestion comes from highly expert and highly technical evidence. So uranium is a dangerous substance even to mine.

I turn now to tailings, the low level wastes which one gets not from making bombs or plutonium but simply from mining uranium. Those wastes contain radioactive materials. According to the Fox report:

Tailings contain radioactive materials which will remain harmful for over 100 000 years.

I repeat: 100 000 years. The report goes on to say this disturbing thing at page 9 1 : . . the Ranger proposal involves storing the tailings behind an engineered dam. A risk with this type of storage is that tailings will escape to the environment if the dam embankment is breached.

That, to me, is a terrifying concept. The tailings are dangerous; they cause cancer, they may cause gene mutations and they last for over 100 000 years. There is a danger over that period in regard to the type of storage envisaged because there is no guarantee that the material can be contained. But I think page 1 10 is the starkest, clearest page of the whole report. On that page there is this statement:

There is at present no generally accepted means by which high level waste can be permanently isolated from the environment . . .

If we combine those 3 points, to me they provide an unanswerable case as to why we should wait until scientists can tell us of a generally acceptable way of containing the dangers and of isolating them from the environment.

I turn now to the question of safeguards. I am not persuaded as to the safeguards enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 24 May or thereabouts, good though they read on paper. The Age classified the situation as ‘ Fraser announces his eleven commandments’. On paper they look great. On paper, if one were feeling disparaged, one could possibly get some consolation from them and say: ‘Well, we are not going to sell our uranium unless we have got those safeguards’. But I ask honourable members to consider this point. We are people in the political field. We have all been overseas. We have all visited other countries. Is there any member of this House who genuinely believes that those safeguards mean anything? Is there any member of this House who believes that the Non-proliferation Treaty is worth the paper it is written on? The Fox report says that it is only an illusion of protection. Has anybody here been to South Africa or Rhodesia? I have not but some honourable members have. We know that the United Nations has a unanimous ban on trade in most items with those countries. Does not the House know that since that ban was imposed trade with Rhodesia has nourished? I think the latest statistics show that it has trebled since the ban was imposed. The almighty buck, the almighty dollar, is the only arbiter in international trade. It is not morality; it is not the selfpreservation of people. It is the dollar that motivates trade.

I have heard a rumour that the Arabs are not very friendly towards Israel. I have been to Israel twice and have had that rumour confirmed. I was standing in the port of Ailat in the south of Israel only 6 months ago. I was with a very close Israeli friend and I saw a tanker unloading oil at an Israeli port. I said to my friend: ‘Where does that tanker come from?’. He said: ‘Chipp, mind your own bloody business’, and smiled and walked away. I made subsequent inquiries and, of course, it was Arab oil. It was oil straight from the Arab States. If someone wants uranium and that someone will pay a high enough price for it, if someone wants plutonium and is prepared to pay a high enough price for it, there will be some means by which the almighty dollar will be satisfied and that sale will take place.

On the question of safeguards, we need not have the Fox report. No matter how honourable we might be, no matter how sincere we are in saying that we have these safeguards and therefore we can wash our hands and sell our uranium, I wonder whether there is any member of the House who genuinely believes that these safeguards mean more than the paper they are written on. While Australian uranium remains in the ground we have a tremendously powerful force to exercise in lifting the world on to a safe and sane energy plane. I was disappointed with the speech of my friend, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), whom I admire enormously. If I heard him correctly, he virtually said that there was no hope for solar energy, tidal energy and wind energy in the near future.

Mr Jacobi:

– I did not say that.

Mr CHIPP:

– I am sorry if I have misquoted the honourable gentleman. I apologise to him.

But we know what human nature is. If we have an easily accessible source of nuclear energy we will use it. Man is a lazy creature, an expedient creature, but if he is put to the test his ingenuity is such that he will find another answer. I am saying that we in Australia have a unique opportunity of giving leadership to the world and preventing it going into a hideous plutonium society, the dangers of it are illustrated in both the Flowers’ report and the Fox report. Those are my views. I am not against the use of nuclear energy but I am against selling our uranium now. Let us retard nuclear poliferation for as long as we can until we can ensure that there are adequate safeguards, until we can make absolutely sure that the wastes are safe, that they will not cause cancer and gene mutations in future generations and the other hideous dangers inherent in the use of uranium.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Before I call the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem), perhaps I should clear up a point that arose during the last speech. By decision of the House, we are debating the ministerial statement on nuclear safeguards policy, the uranium industry, covering the motion of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and the amendment moved to that by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), and the second report of the Ranger uranium environmental inquiry. But the question before the Chair for the time being is that the House take note of the ministerial statement concerning the nuclear safeguards policy.

Mr HASLEM:
Canberra

-Unlike the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp), who preceded me in this debate, this is the first time that I have spoken in a debate in this House on uranium. The honourable member for Hotham seemed to me to be arguing against himself. He explained very carefully how it is the buck that does everything and how Arab oil finds its way to Israel. He appeared to me after listening to him to be really explaining why there is absolutely no point in Australia keeping its uranium in the ground and why the report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry- the Fox report- is quite correct in stating that no matter what we do in Australia or what we recommend it is not going to make an ounce of difference to what happens in the world. That is because of our size and because of what has been pointed out by the honourable member for Hotham; that is, that the magic buck will find a way to make things happen. So I cannot follow his argument that we should leave our uranium in the ground for a short period or a number of years while certain things are clarified and certain safeguards are introduced. No matter what we do, if uranium is a curse it is a curse that will be with us. I accept the point of view, of course, that if it is proved that uranium is a curse, perhaps we should not on moral grounds encourage something that is bad. If that is the point that the honourable member was making, I agree with him.

I think that I should be careful to ensure that the people who are listening to this debate this afternoon know exactly where we are at in the uranium debate. Honourable members will remember that a major statement of the first Fox inquiry was as follows:

The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increase in the risk of nuclear war. This is the most serious hazard associated with the industry. Complete evaluation of the extent of the risk and assessment of what course should be followed to reduce it involve matters of national security and international relations which are beyond the ambit of the inquiry.

Honourable members will know that following upon that statement we had the Carter initiative. It was an initiative that electrified the world and that I think certainly changed the whole complexion of the nuclear debate in this Parliament and Australia. Suddenly the thing that was worrying most of us- the plutonium economywas encapsulated by the President of the United States of America, and suddenly all of the things that had been worrying people who had been branded as ‘trendies’ and ‘greenies’ became respectable.

I think that that is what Mr Justice Fox and his fellow Commissioners were pointing to. That is what the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of 24 May on the Government’s policy on nuclear safeguards followed on so responsibly and where this Parliament was fulfilling its proper role in deciding what should be happening in Australia. The nuclear debate can take place in many ways, but in the end somebody has to decide what is to happen. It must be this Parliament and it must be the government of the day. I was rather alarmed to hear the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), who is a shadow Minister and who spoke second for the Opposition in the debate, carrying on as he did in an earlier debate and threatening, blackmailing and trying to assert that things will not happen unless the Opposition in this Parliament and the unions outside of this Parliament agree. I think that that is sad and irresponsible. It certainly appears to be immature from a member of the Opposition who is supposed to have so much promise.

The second Fox report contains conclusions which I think it is already agreed throughout the community will enable uranium mining and export to proceed. The first inquiry gave the Government a reason for not proceeding if it wanted to sieze upon some of the suggestions contained therein. The thread throughout the first inquiry was mainly that there was nothing that one could really say that made the mining and export of uranium absolutely irresponsible. It is stated throughout the first 4 recommendations that if activities are properly regulated and controlled there is nothing to justify uranium mining not proceeding. The second report states that the Ranger project can proceed if the provisions of the report are adhered to- if the controls and safeguards are adhered to.

What does that mean for us? Does that mean that we in this Parliament can now rush headlong into a decision to mine and export uranium? Is it a green light? Of course it is not. This Government still has a heavy responsibility in relation to the 2 reports and the points that have been raised by honourable members opposite in this debate this afternoon. It is hoped by many supporters of the Government and, I think, some members of the Opposition that we will be able now to proceed quickly and that we will be able now to make the sorts of decisions that national parliaments should make. We are the elected representatives of the people. Those who wish to lie on the road at traffic intersections and to block bridges do not have the responsibility for making decisions; it is the Parliament of Australia. The honourable member for Paterson (Mr O ‘Keefe) outlined to the House the work that has been done by the Government’s back bench committee on trade and national resources. I think it is important for the people of Australia to know that when we talk in this Parliament about debate we are not necessarily talking entirely about debate that takes place in this chamber. The Trade and National Resources Committee, being a Government back bench committee, has met once or twice a week for almost the last 18 months. It has spent ten or fifteen days travelling throughout Australia looking at mines, taking evidence and deciding for itself just how our resources should be developed. The committee has taken evidence from prominent people on all sides of the uranium debate. Opposition committees do exactly the same thing. So those people who wish to discredit the Parliament and discredit the institution should remember that the hours spent on debate in this chamber are only a small portion of the discussion and debate that take place between members of Parliament.

I am sorry that the honourable member for Hotham has now left the House. I feel that some of the work that he did earlier in trying to get this debate brought forward was valuable. My only regret is that he was not a member of the back bench committee that did so much work on this matter. The honourable member claimed that the debate was being stifled, but manifestly it was not. If the Government makes a decision to proceed with uranium mining- I personally think that it should- the real crunch, I suppose, for the uranium industry over the next few months will come when it tries to get through the mine fields of recommendations and administration that have been laid down in the second Fox report. I believe that everything in this report is important and that it is absolutely crucial for the safeguards, in the main, to be adopted. But we must not let the sorts of safeguards that creep into what is predominantly a report to protect the environment set aside other important issues.

Justice Fox was not asked to make decisions on the development of the economy of the Northern Territory. He did not have to fit the uranium situation into the development of Australia as a whole. He had something to say about the energy crisis, but really his was not the responsibility of solving it. The Government will have to take its decisions on this important report over the coming months against this wide background. It will have to make judgments as to whether sequential development of the mines is necessary or whether in fact there are other ways of going about the development of uranium resources which have not been put to Fox or which Fox has not thought of and which may enable work to get under way more quickly without any risk to the environment or the Aboriginal population in the areas concerned.

This has been one of the most interesting parts of my parliamentary career to date. I was elected to this place at a time when the development of our uranium resources was such a burning issue for Australia. The Government is fortunate that it has such a strong majority and so many well qualified and experienced members, both on the front bench and the back bench, at a time when this decision is to be taken. I would be alarmed enormously if the decision on uranium had had to be taken at a time when the government of the country was not in such good hands.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I wish to make some reference to a number of comments that were made by some of my colleagues on the other side of the House and also to comment on the report of the learned Judge and his colleagues that is before us.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) is well known in this Parliament. His record over a long period is known to us all and many of us regard him personally as a friend. As a soldier in the Australian Army he was incarcerated by the imperial Japanese Army in 1942. He was released 3 years afterwards in 1945, as a result of the first use of atomic weapons in a world war. So it can truly be said that the atomic weapons used at that time were used to stop World War II, not to further the development of war.

Mr Young:

– They were unnecessary.

Mr GRAHAM:

– We know that the Nazi Germany was experimenting with heavy water at Telemark in Norway. We know the enemy at that time was developing the know-how and experience that could have led to the development of an atomic weapon. A moment ago the honourable member for Port Adelaide said that it was unnecessary for these weapons to have been used in World War II. The fact of the matter is that the then President of the United States decided to use nuclear weapons because in his judgment this action would finish the war quickly and save the lives of at least hundreds of thousands of allied servicemen who were fighting in the Pacific. I mention this because I believe that the attitude of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is governed by those circumstances. No one could go through that tragic experience without developing an effect that would manifest itself later in life. The honourable member made it clear to me in his speech this afternoon that his great anxiety was that anxiety that is referred to by His Honour Justice Fox and by my colleague the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem). His Honour said that ‘the nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war and that ‘this is the most serious hazard associated with the industry’. I wonder whether the House would accept that statement as being on its own entirely valid. I suggest to the House that if we take out the word ‘nuclear’ and read that statement again we will find that the same validity exists, lt would then read this way: ‘The power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of war’. I suggest to honourable members that this has been the case over a long period. I suggest also that conquerors engage in the business of conquest when they know they can succeed. The reality is that as technological developments take place mankind will have to face up to the fact that conquests will not occur in the historical manner. It will not take place while a deterrent exists as it does at the moment.

Australia is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. When we read what Justice Fox has to say about the Non-Proliferation Treaty we realise that honourable members who are speaking here against the export of Australian uranium ore should have second thoughts. By objecting to the export of uranium they are putting in jeopardy Australia’s international reputation which has been gained from the ratification of this treaty. The Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry second report stated:

A total renunciation of intention to supply designed to bring an end to all nuclear power industries or all further development of them would in our view be likely to fail totally in its purpose. If the purpose were simply to draw international attention to the dangers of and associated with the industry, that purpose might be achieved, but it is most unlikely that any worthwhile action would result. On the other hand there are positive reasons against adopting such a course. Apart from financial considerations, which are not to be neglected, there are considerations to which we referred when dealing with the topic of proliferation. A total refusal to supply would place Australia in clear breach of Article IV of the NPT and could adversely affect its relation to countries which are parties to the NPT.

Am I to understand that the followers of the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam)- the members of the Australian Labor Party- who led the Government which ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons are now saying to the rest of the world that the decision at that time was not to be taken seriously and that circumstances have developed to make them change their minds. Is that the position? I do not believe that it can be. Furthermore, I think that such a proposal put before the leaders of the Western world would be greeted with contempt. As the Prime Minister said on 24 May 1977:

At their recent summit meeting the heads of Government of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, West Germany, France, Japan and Italy committed themselves to increasing nuclear energy to help meet the world’s energy requirements while reducing the risks of nuclear proliferation.

In other words, the major powers on this earth have said that, if we will put our trust in them, they will be prepared to give guarantees that will make the possibilities of nuclear war far too remote a possibility. The other alternative, as we all understand, is to move into the operation of getting nuclear capacity because we are afraid that someone will use it against us. I think that such a policy will not be accepted by the great majority of nations. On the other hand, one must admit that there has been no attempt to conceal that this was the very fear in the People’s Republic of China. I believe that its actions have been governed by the conviction in Peking that it was under great and real threat from the Government of Moscow.

We listened to the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) speaking about national interests. His suggestion was that we should keep our exports within Australia until they were more valuable and then we would be able to get more funds from overseas when they were exported. It is quite clear from the report of Justice Fox that if that were done we would be in breach of the non-proliferation Treaty. I say to Australians, and I hope they will all understand this, that having ratified that Treaty the ratification being carried out by the Labor Government, we are in the position where we have to honour our international agreements. The leaders of the Western world are prepared to go to every rational, responsible length to establish the safeguards which they regard as vital. I would have thought that there was enough evidence to accept that at least the potential conquerers of this world- the conquerers who might be likely to engage in nuclear war- will go along with the nonproliferation Treaty while its suits them. They will go along with the strategic arms limitations talks agreements and they will go along with most of the international agreements. This seems to indicate that peace can survive on this earth. If it cannot, we will face great trouble in the future whether or not the people of Australia are in favour of exporting uranium.

In my judgment it has been properly put forward by my colleagues this afternoon that for 0.4 per cent of the world’s population to start dictating to the rest of the 4000 million people on this earth about their capacity and their right to decide whether they will develop nuclear industries would be entirely wrong. Not only would it be entirely wrong but also, in my judgment, it would be irresponsible and immature politically. I do not believe that will occur. As I understand it, gallup polls taken in this country have indicated that the majority of Australians have some comprehension of this matter which we are discussing. The majority of them are in favour of Australia honouring its international agreements and contracts and honouring article IV of the non-proliferation Treaty. I say in conclusion that it is my hope that the House will support the concept that Australia should proceed with international responsibility and not national selfishness.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-This is the first time that I have entered the uranium debate, although that has not been due to any lack of attention or study on my part. I think that my interest in matters of environment and conservation is well known to members of the House. I have been rather reticent to enter the debate as a matter of conscience. I am one of those people who believe that the resource should be left in the ground until adequate safeguards are available. So far, despite all the reports and statements, I do not believe that those safeguards are available. I think it is fair to say that I am essentially a party loyalist. I support my Party’s policies because I believe they represent the greatest hope for Australians to develop that way of life to which they are entitled. But on uranium the Party’s policy, although restrictive, is still equivocal. I would not want honourable members to get the idea that although I am in quite a deal of agreement with the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) on this matter I am likely to be a Labor Party Mr Chipp. I am not, and for the reason that I believe other aspects come into the issue.

The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) commented earlier that the debate was about the mining of uranium and not energy production through power plants, weapons etc. Of course, that is quite wrong. As a supplier of the raw material, we must give full consideration to what flows from it- from the raw material to the initial energy production, through the power plant; from the raw material to nuclear weapons; from the initial energy production procedure to the other forms of energy production available; or from the energy production to the use of the material left from that and once more to nuclear weapons. Finally, we must consider the problems that occur with the disposal of the waste from these processes. If anyone has any doubt about the importance of the supply of the raw material, I refer them to today’s Sydney Sun. In the world news section there appears a heading Australia’s Key Nuclear Role’. The article states:

Australia will be closely associated with important discussions leading up to the international nuclear fuel evaluation program proposed by America ‘s President Carter.

The article referred to the preliminary study which has been agreed on by Great Britain, the United States, France, West Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada. While Australia will not actually join the exclusive world nuclear club, it will be fully and closely involved. Mr Wedgwood Benn has expressed considerable interest in Australia’s announced nuclear safeguards policy, and the article indicated that there was complete agreement that such nuclear safeguards needed to be secure and absolute. This matter is relevant to the visit to England of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at this moment. In expressing my concern that leads me to refer to the Manchester Guardian of 28 May 1977. It is not only the people here who worry about the long process. That article states:

The Government yesterday delighted environmentalists and exasperated supporters of nuclear power by announcing that Britain will not build a plutonium-burning fast breeder reactor until a full public inquiry on the project has been held.

One of the matters of particular concern about which the article comments is the long radioactive life of the nuclear waste left after the plutonium has been burned in the reactor and the dangers to a free democratic society posed by the substantial presence of plutonium, which is also the raw material for nuclear weapons. If there are absolute and secure safeguards and they still have to have inquiries like that in a country where nuclear power has been used for some time, further doubts must surely arise in our minds. One can see why we have a concern for these safeguards.

Other matters were raised during this debate by other honourable members on which I think I should comment. I was disturbed to hear most honourable members use the term ‘environmentalist’ in a rather sneering way. It is unfortunate that the word ‘environmentalist’ is supposed to represent only an extreme group. Indeed, all of us who are interested in these matters, all of us who accept responsibility, must accept that over the years there have been great depradations of the world in which we live through lack of attention to these matters. One should not accuse individuals because they show some consciousness of the necessity for community concern in these areas. They should not be rubbished and derided because of it.

The other matter which interested me was that at least one honourable member believed that anyone who opposed the mining of uranium was a ‘Com’. I do not know how he came to that conclusion. Anyone who looks at the environmental problems of society today realises that the attitudes on environment of the active capitalist and the active communist coincide, with equally bad results for their communities. In the industry of the capitalist society the profit motive means that the environmental factors are probably amongst the last to receive consideration. They are expensive and they are seen as disposable. In the communist system, of course, the productivity target which industry has to meet is the important thing and the easiest thing to disregard is the environment. I think that that sort of cheap name calling directed at those who take a serious attitude on the question of the environment is unfortunate.

I have been distressed also by the attitude of some honourable members who say that other countries which have uranium as a resource are going to mine it and supply it and therefore we should do the same. Their approval is: ‘If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em’. I suppose that the same gentlemen who take that approach would indicate to any young man that if he were in a situation of pack rape he should not worry about his moral and legal obligations but should just go along with it. I reject that sort of argument as a reason why Australia should be involved in the supply of uranium.

I do not argue with the proposition describing the enormous economic benefit which would accrue to Australia through the mining of uranium. It is not only an economic benefit which flows from the sale of the raw material. Recent media reports would lead us to believe, following the visits overseas of various Government Ministers, particularly the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), that a certain amount of international blackmail is going on in other areas of trade. By that I mean that if we will mine and supply uranium we will also get markets in other areas. I think that the arguments have been put almost as bluntly as that.

As well as these economic questions there are . moral questions. The claim has been made that the largesse from uranium mining would allow Australia to do so much more for our inhabitants in the way of social service benefits and so on. But would social security beneficiaries want to receive increased benefits at the cost of death and injury to people elsewhere on the globe? Would children want to receive adequate education at the expense of damage to future generations? We are also told that by depriving the world of uranium we are depriving needy and developing countries of a ready source of energy. My answer to that is that the developed countries are already doing this by their wasteful and profligate use of fossil fuels. We talk about international safeguards, but can these be enforced? Earlier today the honourable member for Hotham mentioned how so many of these problems could be got around. Let me quote from Time magazine of 30 May this year what was stated in an article about a frightening case. It is headed: ‘Uranium: The Israeli connection’, and states:

In the foggy dawn of 17 November 1968, the Germanbuilt freighter Scheersberg chugged out of Antwerp harbor with a Liberian flag flying from its mast and S60 drums of yellowcake’ packed beneath its decks. The ship never reached its declared destination of Genoa, Italy. Instead, after IS days at sea it docked at the Turkish port of Iskenderun on 2 December, riding high in the water. Its strategic cargo- 200 tons of uranium, worth $3. 7m, that could potentially be used for nuclear weapons- had vanished. The disappearance of the uranium was first disclosed last month by Paul Leventhal, a former counsel to the Senate Committee on Government Operations, at a conference in Salzburg. . . . Who had the uranium? And how did they get it?

After several weeks of investigation by correspondents from Time it has been alleged that the whole thing was a complex plot conducted by Israeli intelligence agents. The purpose was to disguise a secret Israeli purchase of much needed uranium for its French built nuclear reactor. Much more detail is supplied in the article. It is suggested that assurances were given by the West German Government to allow the purchase to be disguised and that Israel promised West Germany access to its advanced uranium separation process that can be used to produce nuclear weapons. I think that honourable members ought to read this article because it is quite frightening. It has its humorous aspects in some ways. The cover purchaser of this uranium was a Casablanca pharmaceutical supply company named Chimagar. It had never bought uranium before. It was a firm which specialised in processing seaweed. Indeed, it really was not a good cover as Morocco is not a member of the European Economic Community and no nuclear material can be shipped outside the Community without a special permit. That is the sort of thing that can occur even with the present safeguards and controls. I think that it should be quite alarming to us.

Comment has been made of the likelihood of damage from nuclear power plants. I wish to quote from an information paper entitled Third Party Liability for Nuclear Damage issued by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Paragraph 12 on page 4 states:

  1. The safety record of the nuclear industry has so far been excellent. For example, in 20 years or so of operating nuclear reactors in the United States, there have been no third party claims arising from the operation of commercial plants. Nevertheless, the theoretical studies discussed above indicate a remote possibility of a very costly accident and this is the underlying assumption providing the basis for nuclear liability legislation.

That is the frightening thing. In this area it requires only one incident to produce frightening results. The nature of the debate has not allowed me to refer to either of the Ranger environmental inquiry reports as we had hoped. But I am concerned that the initial recommendations of that public debate have not been fully covered. The Minister for Environment Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) in response to questions I asked indicated that the Government’s monitoring of the public debate has been conducted by at least one official. But one official cannot monitor the reports in all the newspapers.

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

Mr FALCONER:
Casey

-The House is debating matters relating to the mining and exporting of uranium. I do not want to deal specifically with many of the points that have been raised previously in this debate, but there is perhaps one point I noted that was mentioned earlier with which I should deal. In his address to the House earlier today the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) attacked the Government for having announced a safeguards policy. He said that to announce a safeguards policy before the release of the second Fox report is to prejudge the issue. By saying that, he was also by implication attacking his own Leader who announced a safeguards policy on 29 March in this House on behalf of the Australian Labor Party in respect of the export of uranium. The Leader of the Opposition, when he announced that policy, then went on to berate the Government for not having announced a safeguards policy. It seems therefore that it is a case of an each way bet for the Opposition. If we do not have a safeguards policy, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) attacks us for being behind the Opposition and for not being concerned about safeguards. If we do have a safeguards policy, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition attacks us for prejudging the issue.

I have been following the uranium debate with some interest. I have studied the first report of the Ranger uranium environmental inquiry and now I am studying the second report with some interest. It is interesting to read the 2 reports in view of many of the public statements by the protagonists and opponents of uranium mining. It is interesting to note that in many of the statements made urging a 5-year moritorium the proposition is put that a 5-year moritorium was recommended by the Fox inquiry. But, in fact, the Fox inquiry has studiously avoided making any recommendation one way or another in that respect. I shall refer to page 1 8 1 of the first Fox report where it deals with the matter of whether there should be some delay or postponement in supply of uranium to other countries. The report states:

Because the evidence from which each line of argument is derived remains conjectural and also for reasons stated earlier when discussing the proliferation problem, we have not found a compelling basis for a conclusion on the question whether it is preferable to delay coming to a decision about mining for a period of several years or alteratively to proceed with carefully planned development of the industry. What we do conclude is that at present Australia should not commit itself to withholding for all time its uranium supplies, and that it should take the course which is determined to be the most effective and most practical in order to bring a favourable response from other states in relation to the proliferation problem.

I find that many people who have listened to a number of the arguments put by protagonists in the debate are under the impression that the Fox inquiry has clearly recommended a moritorium for a certain number of years. As that quotation shows, that is not so.

Some rather irresponsible assertions have been made also about nuclear power stations exploding or the possibility of their exploding. Those assertions cannot be justified. On the other hand, I have also objected to a number of the statements that have been made in support of uranium mining and export. Those arguments have been along the lines of let us dig up all that we can and flog it off for the money that is available, or have been along the lines that if we do not export uranium some other countries will come and get it. I think those sorts of statements also are irresponsible and avoid the very real and concerning issues which we ought to be facing. It is interesting to read the Fox report to get some perspective on many of the real problems that exist. However, the Fox report has a number of inadequacies and I shall point to some of them. The Fox report tried to cover so many issues that in many areas the commission was unable to make very clear decisions and recommendations. Simply because it did not have enough evidence on which to base any sort of conclusion, the commission would make some sort of wishy washy statement that really did not give any guidance one way or the other. Indeed, I think there are a few inaccuracies here and there.

In this House on 26 April I directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) a question about the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. This aspect is referred to on page 104 of the first Fox report. The Fox report stated that Australia had not become a party to the Convention and I asked the Minister during question time whether that was so. The reply was that Australia has signed the Convention. Of course, before a country can ratify a convention it has to go through a process of ensuring that the legislation on that subject- in Australia’s case it means both Federal and State legislation- is in conformity with the convention and that the necessary administrative processes are in existence to carry out the terms of the convention. It was apparent from the Minister’s answer that Australia is proceeding to ratify the Convention by getting all the administrative processes under way. So it is not quite clear what the Fox report means when it says that Australia has not become a party to the Convention.

One other respect in which I think the Fox report was most inadequate was Japan’s position in the nuclear power generating area. On page 52 of the first Fox report there was a half page which purported to summarise Japan’s situation. I shall read just one small extract from that summary of Japan’s situation which I believe is most inadequate. That part of the report reads:

Replacement of part of Japan’s proposed nuclear expansion program with an amplified coal-fired power station program, combined with greater emphasis on energy conservation, appears feasible. But the extent to which this could be achieved, or would be acceptable to Japan itself, cannot be assessed from the evidence. Base-load electricity generated by stations fuelled with imported coal would probably be more expensive than that provided by nuclear stations in many cases. However, the evidence indicates that the average capacity factor of some existing nuclear stations in Japan has been low, so the cost of electricity produced by them may be relatively high.

For what is supposedly an expert report I suggest that that passage is so qualified by ‘maybe ‘s’ and could be’s’ that all that the Fox report is saying is: ‘We really do not know what the Japanese situation is’. In January I was in Japan with a number of honourable members and senators and while there we took the opportunity of visiting the Tokai 1 power station which is situated about 70 kilometres from Tokyo. The Tokai 1 power station is the first commercial nuclear power generating station which Japan has established. It is not the only station; there have been many since then. The Tokai 1 power station was established in 1966 and has been feeding electricity into the Tokyo power grid ever since. Next door to the Tokai 1 station is the Tokai 2 station which will be commissioned later this year. It is a much larger and more modern power station. Nuclear power is seen by the Japanese as an energy source which will lessen her reliance on bulky fossil fuel. Of course, Japan is very sensitive to the reliability and regularity of supply of basic raw materials, particularly materials which can provide her with energy. Oil and coal must be imported in large quantities, and they create a further problem of stockpiling in a country with limited space. Thus the Japanese are attracted by the ease with which a year’s supply of, say, nuclear fuel can be stored, providing a buffer against short term disruption of supply caused by regional conflicts and industrial boycotts.

Japan has not yet recovered from the shock of the international oil crisis in 1973 when the action by oil producing countries brought Japan and some other oil importing countries almost to their knees. Another factor which the Japanese see as compelling them towards the development of nuclear power is the problem of atmospheric pollution in their overcrowded cities. The Government in Japan has a very active policy of discouraging industries which rely for their source of energy on coal and oil fired furnaces. Hydro-electric power developments are seen to offer little scope for meeting Japan’s expanding energy requirements because Japan has used up most of the hydro-electric capacity in the country. Japan already has 13 nuclear power generating units in operation with a total output of 7428 megawatts. Presently under construction are a further 1 1 units and 4 more are being planned. Japan expects to be providing about 20 per cent of her electricity requirements from nuclear sources by the time the present construction program is completed in 1983. So for Japan there is no debate about whether to go nuclear- she already has. The main debate centres on methods and rates of progress and the siting of nuclear reactors. In that respect the debate on nuclear power in Japan is probably like the freeway debate in Australia. Everyone is in favour of freeways, but if people are asked whether they would like a freeway through their locality just a few yards away they would be against it. Public opinion polls in Japan indicate that there is a similar attitude to the development of nuclear power stations.

I believe that in the case of Japan and, from what I understand, a number of other countries, they already have made a very clear decision that the development of nuclear energy is in their interests. Japan would say quite categorically that it is necessary for her own independence from the disruption that can be caused to sources of overseas supply of raw materials for her to have a nuclear generating capacity to supply a reasonable proportion of her electricity requirements. So I believe that the situation facing Australia is this: Many countries have made the decision to go nuclear for their power generation requirements. If a decision by Australia not to supply uranium would halt nuclear developments throughout the world I would probably be in favour of a moratorium on mining and exporting in order to resolve existing problems. I am troubled by some of the long term problems that seem to exist in relation to the disposal of waste. That is something that still has to be resolved throughout the world. However, the situation we face is that Japan and other countries already have gone nuclear. Several countries less politically stable and responsible than Australia have uranium supplies or are searching for them. Japan has contracts for the supply of uranium from Canada and South Africa until 1985. We were told in Japan that Japan is assisting Mali in its search for uranium. So it is clear that a number of countries in areas of the world that are less stable than Australia’s area, countries which face potential conflicts and do not have such strict scruples about the supply of uranium as Australia has, are very active in the mining and exporting of uranium.

Also there is the development of fast breeder reactors which has been alluded to by a number of speakers in this debate. Fast breeder reactors produce more and more plutonium. I believe that Australia’s most constructive role is to become known as a responsible and reliable supplier of uranium to countries prepared to observe strict international safeguards. We should play a vigorous role in making those safeguards as effective as possible. This is the real option facing us, not the option of taking a high moral stand by not mining and exporting our uranium and hoping that, in some respect, that will prevent the rest of the world going nuclear. It will not.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-This is one of the subjects on which there are 2 completely separate areas of discussion. One is the energy situation in the world and the necessity for new sources of energy. The other is the moral, social and ecological aspects and the damage which may be caused by providing the sources of energy which, I do not think anyone doubts, will become necessary in the very near future. We live in a society where any restriction on the use of resources, irrespective of what those resources are, is looked on as being unwarranted socialist government interference. Certainly, very few Australians and very few people in the industrialised west are prepared to look at their own situations and decide what their priorities are for the energy resources that now remain. People adopt an idealistic position and move along in the belief that something will come along some day and the problem will go away. It does not look as though this problem will go away. Nuclear energy, if it is used to its maximum extent, will delay the inevitable, possibly through most of our lifetimes and a little longer. But at that stage the problem will return. Technology may have advanced. It may not have.

Both Fox reports have one common factor. They have provided everyone, from whatever point of view they wish to argue, with a basis on which they can argue. It is assumed by those opposed to the mining and utilisation of uranium that the Fox reports suggest fairly strongly that Australia should not mine and export uranium. Those who wish to mine uranium can find parts of the report which make a different proposition. The present policy of the Australian Labor Party, that decided by the caucus, is based on the fact that confusion exists as to the future safe use of uranium and the capacity of the purchasers of that product to guarantee the safeguards which are necessary in the use of that product. It is not unreasonable that, as one of the major producer nations, we should be seeking that level of safeguard as a guarantee.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made a statement the day before the second Fox report came down- we are debating that statement at the moment- in which he set out certain safeguard guarantees. He expanded on that statement in the United Kingdom yesterday in a manner which almost echoes the speech which was made here earlier this year by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam). It does not meet the requirements of those who want absolute safeguards. It certainly does not meet the requirements of the substantial proportion of those who want no mining at all. These are political decisions which, most likely, will be made with too much haste and little real consideration for their long term effects. Although we have had undertakings that a decision will not be made until the second Fox report has been properly debated as an entity in the Parliament, decisions will probably be made too early and without sufficient consideration being given to the 2 Fox reports and the other information available not only to the Government but also at international levels.

The United States has a good moral position. President Carter has said that the United States is opposed to the development of fast breeder reactors. In the environment area and other major areas the United States seems to have a very sound policy line. It is opposed to the advanced technology of other countries ahead of the United States in that technology which damages the environment. I suggest that a certain aircraft is in that category. If an American supersonic aircraft had been constructed and was now operating, the demands of those working in the factories building those aircraft would have overcome the environmental problems surrounding its use. It is easy for President Carter to be self-righteous in this matter because the United States does not have that technological development at the moment. The people whom he is suggesting should not use their technology are the Europeans who are probably more dependent on nuclear power as an energy source at this stage than is the Unites States which has some basic petroleum supplies of its own.

The key problem is whether nuclear energy can be used with reasonable safety to mankind itself. It is all right to say that the Japanese have made a decision to move into the area of nuclear power generation. The Japanese are in a similar situation to that of the United Kingdom late last century and early this century. With its high level of industry, it has to have massive supplies of energy available. In the United Kingdom, coal was the main source of energy. It is no longer a satisfactory source. Japan has never had a native source of energy. I think it is fair to say that we fought a war against Japan because of its need for access to petroleum which was cut off by an embargo in 1941. I do not think that the safeguards we are talking about at this stage are satisfactory. If we say to people ‘If we sell you a product, we want guarantees that you will not use if for a certain purpose and that you will not sell it to another person’ and expect that that will be done we are being less than honest with ourselves. We sold aircraft to Indonesia on certain undertakings. They were used for quite different purposes from those for which we sold them. It is difficult to go into a market-place and say: ‘I want to sell my goods but I want to drive the cars I sell you and eat the cakes I bake or whatever I provide you with.’ We are saying: ‘We will sell you a raw material which is dangerous. Therefore, we want you to guarantee that you will use it in a certain way. Having sold it to you, we expect that you will not breach those agreements even though it may be necessary in your interests.’

The nuclear energy field is not an area into which we should rush. I do not think that a delay of a few months or even a few years will seriously jeopardise the energy resources that are available or are becoming available. Perhaps that sort of delay will provide safety measures and safeguards with long term consequences for the betterment of mankind which are more than matched by the money returns and some of the trade-offs which may be available at present. I am referring to greater access to the European Common Market and agreements with the United States which would be favourable to us. I am concerned that those sorts of trade-offs are not the way in which we should deal with a material which could have such adverse effects. We are talking of a half-life for radioactive waste material of SOO million years and more. At this stage no technology is available to us which can guarantee that we can protect future generations from the after effects of that nuclear waste.

This Parliament is responsible for the export policies of a nation which is estimated to have 25 per cent of the world’s known supplies of uranium. That may be a high estimate or a low estimate but the facts are that we are responsible for a major proportion of the world ‘s uranium. In Australia we cannot make a decision on the basis of the argument about terrorists, atomic bombs etc. I think there is so much plutonium floating around the world at the moment that those sorts of arguments should not be taken into consideration. We should be looking at the specific consequences of accelerating the expansion of nuclear power generation at this stage without taking the trouble and the time to examine whether or not better conditions and circumstances and much higher levels of safeguards can be made available. By safeguards I do not mean agreements between nations because agreements between nations are only as good as the goodwill that exists between those nations. The history books are full of agreements between nations which were not worth the paper on which they were written. I remember one agreement in 1938 with a British Prime Minister. I remember a number written between Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s. History books are full of agreements in which the countries agreed not to do this and that. Such agreements are broken as necessity requires, whether that necessity be political power or economic requirements.

Uranium is the basis of a vast source of energy. Rushing in to develop it in order to exchange it for market access or some other forms of influence would be irresponsible. I believe that delay in order to ensure that we are doing the right thing would be justified. At this stage I suggest that we should not be going into the mining and development of uranium but if delay can make certain that our decisions are correct I think delay is highly desirable. There is too much at stake and there is very little real information in the Australian community about this. I suggest that this debate is a preliminary discussion for Australia. A substantial proportion of the community is interested in this debate; a very small minority has any real understanding of what it is all about.

This Parliament is debating uranium, I think for the third time in about three or four months. Most likely it has taken more time in the debate today than in all the other debates combined. There had been no previous debate of any substance. There have been gyrations on policies on this question by the political parties. The Australian Labor Party is a case in point. Only 2 years ago we adopted a platform which I doubt whether any constituent unit of the Party would accept as being a real and valid policy today. I would think that 2 years ago the attitudes of honourable gentlemen opposite would have been totally different from the attitudes they have in this area today.

I remember a prime minister not long ago saying as part of his policy speech that we would construct a nuclear power station in Australia during the next few years. I think that was seven or eight years ago. Certainly the nuclear power station has not been built. I do not think any government since then has seriously considered building it because, first, it was not a necessary source of energy in Australia and, second, no government was satisfied that it could be done with sufficient safety to warrant its construction. I hope that the Government will delay any firm decision on the export and mining of uranium until such time as it is absolutely sure that such a decision is the correct one. I do not believe that sort of decision can be taken at this moment or in the near future.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

-This is a cognate debate on nuclear safeguards policy, the uranium industry and the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. I suppose I can claim with some justification that I have more than a normal interest in the decisions, the attitudes and the final debate- this is not it- which will produce our ultimate policy in relation to the export of uranium. My more than normal interest is stimulated by the fact that the only active mine in Australia producing and exporting uranium oxide is at Mary Kathleen, which is not only in the electorate of Kennedy but also very close to both of my home towns.

The contribution of the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) was balanced and added splendidly to this debate. He brought out one matter in particular. He stressed the fact that agreements are broken. History has shown that. Attitudes change. I suppose we might well refer to the remarks of my Leader, the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) earlier in the day when he pointed out that the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) had canvassed the countries of the world in an all out endeavour to interest them in buying what is one of our major resources, uranium. From examination of the attitudes of the people on our right here-philosophically on our left- I do not think they have changed a great deal but they have become subject to the fringe of environmentalists who attract nothing but discredit on to the genuine, thoughtful, responsible people who have concern in relation not only to this matter of uranium but also to other matters. This is a group of people who are recognised- unless one is prejudiced in their regard- as the professional demonstrators, the professional bludgery

Mr Scholes:

– Why do you not say that again?

Mr KATTER:

-Yes, I shall repeat it. The ratbag fringe are the professional bludgery. They go around demonstrating on every cause that stimulates policies by countries which are inimical to this country. The first of the matters being considered in this cognate debate is Australia ‘s nuclear safeguards policy. I can do no better than read to the House an extract from a letter which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) wrote to the President of the United States of America, Jimmy Carter:

The Australian Government will be giving close consideration to these matters -

That refers to the safeguards for the export of uranium or its by-products- in the near future in the context of formulating a national Australian policy on nuclear safeguards. Naturally we wish to take full accounts of any new thinking as it develops in this area, especially to ensure that our policies and those of the United States and other like-minded countries, such as Canada, are mutually reinforcing.

We have heard members of the Opposition constantly citing Canada as reacting and being sensitive to the application of safeguards in this matter. The Prime Minister goes on to say:

Australian officials already have held detailed and useful consultations with United States officials and I am sure you would agree that it is highly desirable that this be an ongoing process.

That was the letter written by the Prime Minister to Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter, no less a person than the President of the United States, above his own signature wrote in reply:

As you are aware, we are currently making a comprehensive review of United States non-proliferation policies.

He then goes on to speak of the safeguards that are being considered and the general attitude and philosophy of the United States. In other words, the Prime Minister has allied himself with a man who has surprised the world by being so completely conscious of the necessity to supply safeguards.

Let us look at what no less an authority than Dr Margaret Maxly had to say and what she believes. Her own expression of opinion is this:

If Australia does not mine uranium and export it with proper safeguards and assurances, then world demand will turn to other suppliers such as South Africa and South

America who may be not as careful or require as strict safeguards.

This is one of the reasons why she believes Australia should undertake this venture. Here is an important point and I think it is worth consideration. No doubt it will receive consideration because the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) can be well assured that we are not rushing into this thing. But good heavens, how much longer are we to wait; how much longer are we to keep people out of employment while we consider and reconsider this matter? Admittedly we have had an analysis of the situation supplied by the 2 Fox reports. I think that we can safely say, if we are perfectly honest, because we are not going around the country and more or less justifying the expenditure and the lag of time, the years we have had to wait for the Fox Committee report to become available, that there is nothing new in it. For we people who are close to the uranium scene and for we people who confer from time to time with the people who are practically associated with the uranium situation there is nothing new in the Fox report. I say that if a decision had been made by the Government 2 years ago that decision would be little different from the decision which will be made perhaps 2 years hence, although I hope a lot earlier. God forbid that we have to wait that long. That is the situation. I cannot stress this point enough. I have to get across- we on this side of the House all have this duty- the expression of opinion that was so clearly enunciated by our own Leader, our own Prime Minister, and which was repeated here today by the Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony) who is also the Acting Prime Minister.

Let us look at what the Prime Minister himself said when he talked about safeguards. He mentioned containment, surveillance and the accounting and inspection of nuclear materials. My goodness, the man could not have gone into greater detail. He summed up by saying this:

Against this background, I would like to announce the following specific components of the comprehensive safeguards policy which the Government has adopted.

Note them and note them well. I am repeating them here tonight so that they will again appear in Hansard. I am repeating them so that the Prime Minister’s words will counter the attitude of the media. This is the regrettable part of this whole situation. The media will give great headlines to every ratbag sort of demonstration that is put on from one end of the country to the other. I talk of demonstrations by those like Friends of the Earth. They have an affinity with the earth. I wish that that affinity was 6 feet deep. I have no compunction in making that comment.

The Labor Party has degenerated. The regrettable thing is that there is a great element of hypocrisy on the part of many members of the present Labor Party. I repeat that the Prime Minister canvassed our uranium all around the world and hoped to get great sales of this product. Then we heard a suggestion during the debate today that we are just anxious to woo the big companies and that all we are concerned with is money and sales. The great capitalist, the multi-national story is put across again. Let us have a look at the capitalists. What does the bell boy Telegraph tell us? The bell boy Telegraph tells us that the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party would not live in anything less than an executive suite at the Wentworth Hotel. The bell boy Telegraph could tell honourable members a few other things as well. Let us cast our minds back to the advertisements about uranium that appeared in 1972. Some of the newspapers carried a full page advertisement and we saw some of the lesser lights in the business world such as Ken Myer supporting the Labor Party. Of course, he is not a capitalist! The Labor Party has no association with that type of person. It is economy size hypocrisy!

I shall read the official safeguards enunciated by our Prime Minister. They cover:

The need to keep policy under review;

I suppose that technical advances will have to be examined and we will be pliable in our attitude there. careful selection of eligible customers for uranium; the application of effective International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards-

I was quite interested and fascinated by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) in connection with this matter today. In one breath he was saying that the Agency’s opinion was to be valued and in another breath he was telling us not to pay very much attention to it. The other components comprise: bilateral agreements with customer countries: fallback safeguards; that is extremely important- prior Australian Government consent in relation to reexport, enrichment and reprocessing:

When we talk about re-export and reprocessing, we should stop to realise and to appreciate one particular fact: That if we are not going to export natural uranium we are going to stimulate the production of plutonium and other enrichment processes which will create a great hazard. Honourable members opposite should remember that when they talk about terrorism and all the other furphies. The remaining components are: physical security; safeguard provisions in contracts; and international and multilateral efforts to strengthen safeguards.

I now turn to the human element of the uranium industry. I suppose I could also include the third subject of this debate, the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, under that heading. When I commenced my address to the House I said that I had in my electorate the only uranium mine which is actively operating in this country at present. There is a very large community and a very large body of workers who depend on that mine. It may interest honourable members to know that since the Mary Kathleen uranium mine went back into operation there have been a number of job vacancies. The company cannot get anyone suitable to fill those vacancies. When the Mount Lyell mine closed down the company thought it would have no difficulty in getting people to fill the vacancies at Mary Kathleen. They were not successful because extreme union bosses told people at the Mount Lyell mine that they were not to work at Mary Kathleen. I issue a word of warning to those bosses who are very comfortably situated in their great capital cities with their 4 television channels and so on. I say to them that it would be a decidely dangerous operation for them to appear physically on the Mary Kathleen uranium field. I suggest that if they do go up there they buy a single ticket, not a return ticket, because I do not think that they would need it. The people at Mary Kathleen depend on the mine for their existence.

I wish to raise one final matter and it concerns people with whom I have grown up and know intimately and not for political purposes, the Aboriginal people. Let me tell honourable members opposite this and let them cut out their silly, stupid hypocrisy: If the Aboriginal people were to see the Ranger Mine develop tomorrow, they would take a fascinated interest and in time they would get to learn what was happening there. They would gain great advantages, monetary as well as physical, from the development of that area. The difficulty is that we get the great white bosses, the Uncle Toms- and they call us Uncle Toms- going out there and filling these people with alcohol and spurring them on to make them discontented.

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

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

-I think that it ill becomes the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) to describe the people who demonstrate against the mining of uranium as professional bludgers. I hope that one day the honourable member will have his conscience pricked and feel some remorse in his heart for having used those words. I have a great deal of admiration for the people who demonstrate against this issue. I believe that they show true affection for their fellow man and the human race. I remind honourable members that the late President Kennedy used these words not long before his demise:

Man has at his disposal the facilities to make this world the best in the history of mankind or he has the means of its total destruction.

That is what concerns the demonstrators whom the honourable member for Kennedy has described as professional bludgers. They are people who are interested in the welfare of mankind and in the preservation of this planet. Atomic weapons are becoming the growing concern of more and more people as they learn about and interest themselves in the mining of uranium and the purposes for which some countries may ultimately use the uranium. President Kennedy is on record also as saying:

Never have the nations of the world had so much to lose or so much to gain. Together we shall save our planet or together we shall perish in its flames. Save it we can and save it we must and then shall we earn the eternal thanks of mankind and, as peacemakers, the eternal blessing of God.

That was the concern of the late President Jack Kennedy. That should be the deep concern of every member of this House. There is no cause for describing those who express their concern as to what might happen with the reckless, indifferent mining of uranium, which they do not want to see take place, as professional bludgers, as the honourable member for Kennedy did. The Western world is playing with a commodity when it does not know the full extent of its effects on future generations.

Mr Cotter:

– There is a lot more of it to find yet, too.

Mr JAMES:

– Yes. I remember attending a lecture some years ago by Professor Linus Pauling, who had the backing of some ten or twelve nuclear physicists in the United States. He pointed out in one of his lectures that some 10 000 young people between the ages of 7 and 12 years had died in the United States of leukaemia and that it was believed that these deaths had been brought about by the testing of atomic weapons in the atmosphere by the United States before it was agreed-

Mr MacKenzie:

– He did not say that.

Mr JAMES:

– If you continue to interject I will have to deal with you and I do not want to hurt your feelings.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Jenkins)Order! The House will come to order.

Mr JAMES:

– That happened before the United States agreed to outlaw testing in the atmosphere. The son of Senator Edward Kennedy had to have one of his legs removed at a very tender age because of leukaemia. I have often wondered whether that was the result of the atomic testing that occurred in the atmosphere some years ago before the great powers agreed to the outlawing of such testing. Members of Parliament and society today have a big responsibility to protect the unborn children, otherwise we could bring about a race of zombies in the generations to come.

MrCotter-Ha, ha!

Mr JAMES:

– You are laughing like one over there. You remind me of a zombie by the way in which you laugh. I think you might be suffering from the effects of strontium 90, too.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I invite the honourable member for Hunter to address the Chair, otherwise I might take those remarks personally.

Mr JAMES:

– It should be within the knowledge of honourable members that, in the aftermath of the dropping of atom bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japanese women were giving birth to malformed children, as the statistics of the Japanese Government show. It is the inherent right and desire of every decent woman to reproduce. The girls of Nagasaki and Hiroshima went to other parts of Japan in anticipation of marrying and when it was learned that they had come from Nakasaki and Hiroshima they had great difficulty in being accepted because the statistics in Japan were showing up the malformation of young children. It was suspected that this was the result of the bombs being dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I have some degree of respect for the Women’s Electoral Lobby, which has dedicated itself to expressing concern about the reckless mining of uranium being allowed to continue. I applaud that organisation for its enthusiasm and enlightenment of society in general as to the effects of the mining of uranium if it is allowed to be done recklessly. Occasionally we hear the argument being put by supporters of the Government that we could become one of the richest countries in the Western world and that our foreign exchange earnings would be improved markedly if we produced enriched uranium and exported it.

It is not so long ago that I attended a screening in this building of a documentary film on the life of Wilberforce M.P. in the Pitt Government in the United Kingdom about 1850. It was about the agitation by Wilberforce for the abolition of the slave trade and Britain’s participation in the slave trade. The same arguments were raised then about the unemployment it would create in relation to the building of ships, about the ships ‘ crews being retrenched and about the foreign exchange that was being brought into Britain by its major participation in the slave trade. It was said then that underneath the decks of the ships there was valuable cargo. It should be recalled that Wilberforce made between five and seven attempts before getting his Bill through the House of Commons nearly 200 years ago. His attempts were frustrated because of the foreign exchange earnings. A similar argument is being put up here today by those who believe in the non-curtailment of the production of uranium.

Mr Cotter:

– Do you believe in there being higher unemployment?

Mr JAMES:

– I believe in the preservation of the human race, which apparently you do not. You put wealth before the welfare of the people.

Mr Armitage:

– Only a few hundred jobs are involved anyway.

Mr JAMES:

– Only a few hundred jobs are involved in uranium mining.

Mr Uren:

– It is highly capital intensive.

Mr JAMES:

– It is capital intensive. I have learned through the years that wherever money and morals clash money eventually survives. One only has to recall the case of a wellknown drug company in West Germany that got writers, eloquent people and academics to advocate the sale of thalidomide before it produced that drug. The drug was supposed to be harmless to the human race. Money was put into the campaign to convince the public that the drug was harmless to human beings. This shocking scandal resulted in the drug company having to pay back millions of dollars in compensation to the unfortunate children who were born with defects as a result of the drug. That is what I mean when I say the power of money eventually survives in the Western world capitalist system.

The Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) at one time believed in stricter controls for the mining and export of uranium. But since he went around the world apparently he has been cushioned to take a more tolerant view. I am proud of the Labor Party’s stance on this issue. We are very concerned about this matter. History shows that the Labor Party has always been concerned about the welfare of people in preference to money. I sincerely hope that the Australian people will take a greater interest in the mining and export of uranium because it is of major interest to the people of the world. In conclusion I want to quote something that was said by a famous American lady some time ago. She said that the people of the world are not as interested in the welfare of their fellow-man as they should be.

Mr Cotter:

– We are talking about uranium.

Mr JAMES:

-She was referring to uranium, too. Mrs Pearl Buck, a prominent United States woman, said:

It is ironical that in an age when we have prided ourselves on our progress in the intelligent care of teaching of our children we have at the same time put them at the mercy of new and most terrible weapons of destruction.

This is what concerns me and should concern every thinking Australian. If honourable members opposite do not protect future generations with the normal and tight safeguards in respect of the mining and export of uranium they do not deserve to occupy the government benches of this country.

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Bass · LP

– This debate which flows from the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry and now encompasses the recommendations of the second Fox report and the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on safeguards policy is an important element in the Government’s consideration of the technically complex, diverse and internationally significant issues associated with uranium mining. It is natural and proper that Parliament should crystalise and provide a focus for the general public debate which is now taking place and which will continue on this issue. But whatever the tone of the debate, whatever arguments are put, however long the debate should last, at some stage the Government must accept its responsibility to decide the future of uranium mining in Australia.

The Government has stated time and again that it would not make its decision until the second report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry had been received. However much the spokesmen of the Opposition would like to exaggerate, perhaps even to deceive, we have not yet made a decision on this matter. But we are now in a position to take further our consideration of uranium mining in Australia.

The 2 Fox reports have emphasised the complexity of the issues confronting Australia over uranium mining. Australia has extensive deposits of uranium at a time when the world faces the need to make fundamental changes in its supply and use of energy resources, when there is growing concern for the environment in which we live, and when there is anxiety over the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Thus it is not merely a question of digging uranium out of the ground. The very mention of uranium propels us into an international arena and confronts us with a wide range of issues.

I must say that speakers in this debate from both sides of the House have comprehended many of these issues, drawing them together in a consideration of nuclear safeguard policies, the potentiality of the uranium industry itself and the reports of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. While I am on the subject of the inquiry I think I have to say that the Parliament is indeed fortunate to have available to it the 2 reports on the Ranger uranium problem. The 2 reports taken together represent a major contribution not only to Australia but also to international understanding of the environmental consequences of the uranium industry in the broadest terms as it affects mankind. In the Commissioners’ own words, it is a uniquely sensitive environmental consideration particularly when applied to the Alligator River area. I should like to convey to the Commissioners the Government’s thanks for the very comprehensive way in which they have tackled their job. I know that each Commissioner has put an enormous amount of individual effort into the report. I think I can say that the people of Australia are indebted to them for their efforts.

I should now like to address myself to the safeguard problem. In my statement to the Parliament on 1 1 November I indicated the Government’s broad acceptance of the preliminary findings and recommendations of the report as a basis for future decisions on the industry. In particular, we strongly supported the inquiry’s view on the need for the fullest and most effective safeguards on uranium exports. The Prime Minister’s statement on uranium exports last week was the culmination of a long study by the Government of this significant aspect of the uranium mining question. For its part, the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry helped crystallise many of the issues and enabled the Government to take that issue further. The Government for some time has recognised the desirability of describing a comprehensive policy on nuclear safeguards. The announcement of that policy in no way pre-empted the decisions which the Government must take on whether to mine or export uranium. For the honourable member for Blaxland to say in this place that our safeguards policy really was something that we dreamt up on the spur of the moment in the last few weeks or that it was based on the Opposition’s 5-point plan is absolute nonsense and total exaggeration. I stress again that this examination has been going on literally from the time that this Government came to office. It is Australia ‘s contribution to international efforts to strengthen measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The timely development of this policy has enabled the Government to exercise a strong and responsible influence on international thinking on safeguards at a time when these matters are under close examination by many other countries. I refer here to the question of whether we should decide to export uranium.

A basic feature of the Government’s approach to safeguards policy is a recognition of the need to keep under close review safeguards policy and arrangements to take account of the evolution of international thinking on safeguards. I might add that my Department which is the Department responsible for the environment has maintained an active involvement in the interdepartmental committees which have advised the Government on these matters. Since the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry the Government, in formulating a policy in this matter, has taken into account the report of the Australian Safeguards Mission which was made late last year, the Prime Minister’s correspondence with President Carter and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada and the recent visit to North America by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and several other Australian Government officials. But the essential elements of the Government’s policy on safeguards have been made very clear in the Prime Minister’s statement. I do not think that I have to go through it here. But there are a couple of matters that I would like to take up. First of all, the Australian Financial Review on 25 May 1977 stated that in one major respect the safeguards policy announced by the Prime Minister on 24 May falls short of supporting President Carter’s recently expressed wish to see an end to recycling of spent fuel from conventional reactors to extract plutonium.

I deny that statement completely. The safeguards policy announced by the Prime Minister does not fall short of supporting President

Carter’s policy regarding reprocessing. President Carter’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy Act of 1977 sent to Congress on, I think, 21 April defines export conditions relating to reprocessing as: a requirement that no fuel exported from the United States be reprocessed without the prior approval of the United States.

The policy announced by our Prime Minister on 24 May contains an identical requirement. Australia supports the United States, Canada and other like-minded countries in constructive efforts to strengthen nuclear safeguards and reduce the risks of nuclear non-proliferation. A copy of the fact sheet issued by the White House on 27 April on President Carter’s Nuclear NonProliferation Policy Act of 1977 is available from me for anybody who might want it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) asked whether the new safeguards policy would apply to existing approved export contracts. In answer I point out that shipments are proceeding in respect of export contracts approved prior to 2 December 1972. As set out in the Government’s statement of 1 1 November following the First Report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, the Government is satisfied that appropriate controls would apply to the shipments under these contracts which will be used for electric power generation in Japan, the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, all of which are parties to the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The material will be processed to uranium hexafluoride in the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States which are parties to the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty and which require stringent safeguards on the material processed. Furthermore, in this regard as Australian uranium will be finally processed into enriched uranium in the United States, it will attract the full force of the safeguards policy recently announced by President Carter. If Australia proceeds with further development of its uranium resources, and safeguards agreements of the kind outlined in the policy statement are concluded, these will govern all subsequent shipments to those countries with which agreements are concluded.

So, I summarise the position of the safeguards policy. Firstly, the Government has emphasised that it does not regard safeguards as a consideration to be balanced against plain commercial considerations. Secondly, the policy goes a long way beyond the 5-point plan proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) in this place on 25 March. Lastly, and most importantly, it goes a long way beyond the recommendations which were made by Mr Justice Fox in his 2 reports, particularly the first report.

I go on now to some considerations of the debate itself. The motion before the House is, in essence, whether a decision on the further development of the uranium industry- that is, whether to permit the development of new uranium mines and the export of their products- should be the subject of further debate. The Government has recognised that the great issues raised by Mr Justice Fox and his colleagues in their first report were of such a nature as required the involvement of the Australian people.

We have been greatly encouraged by the very substantial interest which the Australian people have shown in this matter since the release of the first report. I have placed considerable importance on following the course of this debate since that time. As I have said before in the House, I asked both the staff of my office and officers of my Department to assist me in monitoring the debate. I kept myself closely informed both personally and through their reports of the various views which have been expressed. Of course, it should not be thought that the debate commenced with the first report of the uranium inquiry. That would be wrong. In fact, it has been going on for some years. The very existence of diverse views on mining and the export of uranium was one of the reasons which led the former Government to have the commission of inquiry implemented. The inquiry, of course, must be seen as a further significant element in the debate. Testimony to that fact is found when we consider that it sat for over 120 days and over 300 people were witnesses. The Government attributes great significance to the values and views which have been expressed, particularly during the last few months. We will continue to listen carefully to what is being said following the release of the second report. The Government will attempt to reflect, in any decision it may take, what it perceives to be the majority or consensus view of the Australian people.

It would be foolish of me to suggest that the debate has a beginning and an end and that any clear and concise majority in favour of one course of action or another will emerge. The evidence that I have so far suggests that there is a wide diversity of views held very seriously by a diverse group of people and that any particular view is not limited to any specific section of the Australian community. In other words, the diverse attitudes on these issues are supported by Australians from a wide range of political and socio-economic backgrounds. Having said all that, I say bluntly to the House that on the evidence gathered so far- it is a comprehensive analysis which I have before me- the majority of Australians are not opposed to the mining and export of uranium given adequate safeguards over the uses to which these exports may be put and the guaranteed protection of the environment, the conservation of nature and the highest consideration for the interests of the Aboriginal people.

However, I cannot support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) since clearly that would pre-empt the very recommendations which Mr Justice Fox and his colleagues have made. Indeed, we are not faced with a single decision but with a whole series of decisions. I have no doubt that as those decisions are taken- some within a relatively short time, others within months and perhaps years to come- the debate will continue and, in turn, will influence the Government in the sequence of decisions. Whatever experience we may obtain through research and consideration of the other matters put forward by the commissioners will reinforce our capacity to make those decisions. I make some mention of the inquiry process. The inquiry and these reports epitomise in a most comprehensive and profound way what environmental concerns are about. The definition of environment in the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act states: - -

Environment includes all aspects of the surroundings of man, whether affecting him as an individual or in his social groups.

The commissioners have scrupulously followed the implications of this definition and have reinforced the validity of the environment as a dimension of concern, not only to governments but also to all Australian people. While referring to this Act, I make some comment on the inquiry processes which may be instituted under it. These processes are not commonly directed and are reserved for matters of particular complexity or public concern or, as in this case, where both of these aspects arise. The end point of an inquiry is the recommendations it makes, in the first place to the Minister responsible for environmental matters and then he- that is myself in this case- in turn carries them to the Government as a whole for its decision. I emphasise that it is the Government and, through it, the Parliament which in the end determine, and must determine, what is acceptable or otherwise for the Australian environment. (Extension of time granted.) I thank the House for its indulgence. I shall finish within a few short minutes. I finish on this note: As the national Minister concerned with the environment, I state that the thrust of the many recommendations of the inquiry seems to me to be entirely consonant with proper environmental protection. Of course, these recommendations will need much detailed examination by the Government. In particular, I have no difficulty if the Government decides to proceed with mining in relation to the first recommendation of the second report which is:

No part of our proposals be varied unless it is clear that alternatives will be pursued which will just as satisfactorily achieve the same purposes and the same principles.

I am sure that the proposals will be varied if only to take account of the fact that under the circumstances in which such a decision might be taken it will need to be recognised that uranium occurs widely throughout Australia. Thus, I would like to see further administrative arrangements developed which are consistent with the discussions I have been having with my counterpart ministers in the States on environmental assessment. Having said what I have said about the inquiry itself, I point out that I believe that the inquiry has led to the assembly of much relevant but, I suppose, previously relatively inaccessable information. It provides an opportunity to test the accuracy of data and the validity of judgments in an open forum and will enable the nation as a whole, the Parliament and this Government to develop and implement soundly based policy.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

-I believe that the question we are debating tonight is one of the most important issues of conscience that people in this country and throughout the world, wherever the debate is continuing, have had to face. I believe it is an issue which will affect not only this generation but many generations to come. I believe it is one about which the people of Australia and of the world should very carefully consider their attitudes and positions before making their decision. I am not so deeply concerned about the question of mining but I am deeply concerned, as a matter of conscience, about questions of waste and proliferation.

Mr Cotter:

– Mining will not make any waste.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– I am referring particularly to plutonium. For example, on the question of waste, a committee of my Party in this Parliament recently had before it Dr Hardy of the Atomic Energy Commission, who was said to be a pro-uranium man very strongly in favour of nuclear energy as a source of power, and I believe he is. But as he went on during the afternoon, discussing this matter and answering questions- I want to make it very clear that I am not making a personal attack on him- I felt that he became one of the strongest advocates of a moratorium. The arguments he put up were such that he was strongly advocating the cause of a moratorium and of the world having to attack the issues of waste and proliferation. In regard to waste, he discussed the various methods of disposal. For example, France drops the waste into the deepest parts of the Atlantic in stainless steel containers. Lately it has been said that it should be placed in containers about 8 feet or 9 feet high and the containers should be buried in particular formations such as salt or granite 600 metres below the ground. In other words, there would be a platform 600 metres below the ground. When all the holes were filled with the containers they would be sealed off and guarded for a thousand years. That was his submission. He submitted that although plutonium was active for 250 000 years it was dangerous to man for only 1000 years and therefore it was necessary to guard it for only 1000 years. Who can tell us what the political situation in the world will be in 50 years time or 100 years time?

Mr Crean:

– Orin 50 days.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Or in 50 days, as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports says; or in 500 years or 1000 years? How could such a guarantee be given? The honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) mentioned earthquakes. Dr Hardy said that the waste should be buried in areas whose history is free of earthquakes. Once again, we could never be sure. Dr Hardy also admitted that another proposal was floating around- I heard it first about a year ago coming from Japan and now it is coming from the United States- that those countries which sell uranium should control the sale and ensure that the plutonium is returned to them and buried in their own country. The north-west of Australia is one of the areas which has been mentioned. In other words, we would be the garbage dump for atomic waste.

Mr Cotter:

– Speak for yourself.

Mr ARMITAGE:

-I am speaking very seriously. These submissions were put before us by a very eminent atomic scientist in Australia. In answer to a question from me on proliferation and how it can be controlled, he said that that was something for the countries and governments of the world to handle by negotiation and agreement, and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) will remember that. If I recollect correctly, Dr Hardy admitted that it was very difficult to get agreement between the various governments of the world on these issues. The point I am making is that this person, who was pro-uranium, was advocating the waste being buried roughly 2000 feet below the ground in special formations such as granite and salt.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Geologically sound formations.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– Yes, in geologically sound areas, and it should then be guarded for 1000 years to ensure that it could not be obtained for purposes of manufacturing atomic bombs and so on. Secondly, he was advocating that there should be agreements between the governments of the world in relation to proliferation. Quite frankly, I think he damned his own case. I know that he is probably very dedicated to his viewpoint but his viewpoint does not happen to be mine. I believe that in making those submissions he strengthened the case against the sale of uranium for nuclear energy purposes. For this reason I believe that there should be a moratorium. Some argue it should be for 2 years, others argue for 5 years. I personally believe that it should be an extended moratorium so that the debate can continue. At present the vast majority of people are still quite uninformed on this issue. Next Sunday in my electorate we are showing 3 hours of films covering both sides of the debate.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is that open to the public?

Mr ARMITAGE:

-It is open to Party members and whoever they wish to bring along. It is open to the public. These films are being prepared by the National Executive of the Labor Party and cover both sides of the debate.

Mr Cotter:
Mr ARMITAGE:

-Strangely enough, my friend, they do, as well as the economic consequences and the alternatives. We must remember that nuclear energy can fill a gap of only 20 years. That figure is based on the known resources of uranium in the world at this stage, and that is what we are talking about. In other words, when petroleum starts to run out there will be a 2-decade gap which nuclear energy will fill. From that time on we will have to look to solar power. One of the great things about this debate is that it is not just occurring in Australia. It is occurring throughout the world in countries such as West Germany, Japan and the United States of America. I believe that the result of this debate will be to force countries to inject more capital investment into finding alternatives for petroleum and nuclear energy and to investigate sources of power such as solar energy. This is the basic reason that I support a moratorium. I support it because it will force a debate. It is a debate which has to occur. Unfortunately this Government is endeavouring to ignore the main recommendation of the Fox report.

Mr Cotter:

– You have had a moratorium now for two or three years.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– You have had no moratorium, brother. The Fox report came out only a few months ago. The Government wishes to move ahead straight away. I can say only this: I hope that the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Cotter) will finally realise how far wrong the extreme Right has been time and time again. It was wrong in issues such as Vietnam. I believe it will find out as time moves on that it is also wrong on this issue. For those reasons I am strongly of the view that the debate should continue. We are aware that these days individuals who can obtain plutonium can make crude atomic bombs with the use of science magazines published in the United States.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Schoolboys can do it.

Mr ARMITAGE:

-As the honourable member for Hughes says, schoolboys could make such a bomb. Certainly terrorists could do so. In other words, in the future it will not be a case of hijacking aeroplanes. Terrorists will turn to making crude home-made atomic bombs. Honourable members opposite are not prepared to consider these issues. I submit very sincerely that they are issues of conscience which will not just affect this generation but can affect many generations to come. I am not normally looked on as a young radical. I am speaking on this issue tonight as a matter of conscience because I have a very strong and firm belief that we should be prepared to allow this debate to continue, and that the Government should be prepared to grant a moratorium on the mining and future sales of uranium. It should do this instead of introducing into the Parliament papers such as the one presented by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 24 May 1977 headed ‘Government policy on nuclear safeguards’, which is basically window dressing to give him an excuse for further mining and to allow Australia to enter into further contracts for the sale of uranium to countries for nuclear purposes.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Brought out a day before the Fox report.

Mr ARMITAGE:

-As the honourable member for Hughes says quite correctly, the paper was brought out a day before the presentation of the Fox report. The Prime Minister did not even have the decency to wait until the report was tabled in the Parliament. Having made those points which I think are very important, I submit very sincerely that a moratorium should be placed on uranium mining. There must be a debate on the subject. The debate is occurring throughout the world. It is important that the world be forced to face up to the fact that alternatives have to be found. I repeat that. I am deeply concerned not so much on the question of mining as on the issues of waste and proliferation. I am deeply concerned because they will affect many generations to come.

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

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I have been interested to hear, as one should in the tradition of a debate on such a serious topic, the points being presented to endeavour to convince this House and the nation of the merits of the case of the Australian Labor Party. I do not know whether the Labor Party has yet convinced itself about what is its overall case. What now appears to be the case of perhaps a narrow majority in the Labor Party is that we should do nothing until the problem apparently solves itself.

Mr Baillieu:

– They call that policy.

Mr BAUME:

– That is what is called a policy, as the honourable member for La Trobe quite correctly interjects. It is, in fact, a policy of political expediency. It is now recognised as a useful emotional vote catching gimmick to discover suddenly that there are such serious risks in uranium mining in Australia that it should not take place. Of course, this is in total contradiction of the proposition maintained earlier by most of the leading members of the Party opposite. In the halcyon days of their power all they were concerned about was getting the most money for uranium. The question of morality apparently did not appear so large as magically overnight it has now become. Professor Heinz Arndt made a couple of interesting points on this topic of the morality of the uranium debate in a recent speech. Of course, he is professor of economics at the Australian National University. He pointed to the comparisons between the long campaign against fluoridation of the water supply and the anti-uranium proposition. There was no doubt that the anti-fluoridation fanatics continued their fight against fluoridation despite being trapped by an experiment in a United States mid-western town. The water engineer announced that the water supply for March, I think is was, had been fluoridated. The city council was inundated with letters complaining about people’s teeth falling out, their hair falling out, people becoming pregnant magically and people becoming unpregnant even more magically. Only at the end of this period he announced that in fact, the water supply had not been fluoridated at all. This did not discourage the wild campaign which, of course, was based on something of a paranoid streak which I suggest tends to run through many protest movements.

As Professor Arndt pointed out, the general thing about protest movements of this kind is that the questions at issue are seen as matters of conscience. It was curious that that exact phrase was used by the honourable member for Chifley. His conscience has been prompted suddenly after so many years to come to the fore on this matter for the first time. Such people are also involved in value judgments which cannot be proved right or wrong. The other point that Professor Arndt made was that the issues often turn in part on highly technical matters which layman find it hard to understand, let alone assess, while the experts as in all matters of applied science can never be absolutely certain but nave to base their opinions on the weight of evidence. Professor Arndt points out that the present antinuclear campaign, which in Australia concentrates on opposition to mining and export of uranium, is clearly in this tradition of conscience radicalism. The issues, of course, are technically difficult. The points that seem to be raised by the opponents are based on an attitude of fear, risk, terror and confusing people by appealing to their emotions. What is not discussed by such people are the benefits, the need to go nuclear or, in fact, the risks of not going nuclear.

Fortunately I had the opportunity earlier this session to discuss the first Fox report in the House. At that time I pointed out the serious consequence of carbon wastes in the atmosphere if we continued to use fossil fuels or continued to increase our use of fossil fuels at the dramatic and drastic rate of recent years. This will have a climactic effect on our capacity to survive on this planet.

The alternative proposition with respect to uranium is that nuclear fuel is much safer and much cleaner, and that has been demonstrated very adequately to be the fact. The other point I made at that time and I want to repeat it as quickly as possible, is that the failure to provide uranium to power users will force the earlier arrival of the plutonium economy, which is the dangerous economy. That is the product which can Lc used in atom bombs. It is the area where the scare technique, the scare campaign, may well ultimately have a degree of accuracy. It is fascinating that the people who are opposing the use of nuclear power and the mining of Australian uranium are by their very actions forcing the power hungry nations of this world into a technology which uses hardly any uranium at all but which is desperately dangerous. It is an irony that this campaign will achieve exactly the opposite of what it hopes to achieve.

One has to ask whether that campaign is based on a degree of integrity in many areas and I submit, as I did a few weeks ago, that that campaign largely seems coincidentally to be protecting the interest of Arab oil producers in an energy hungry area. There is no doubt that the provision of large quantities of uranium from Australia would help reduce the stranglehold that the Arab nations have on the fuel situation in this nation, and one does not have to breakfast with an Iraqi to understand that simple economic fact.

The other points which Professor Arndt made are very real. They deal with the question of risk which clearly is the crux of the anti-uranium debate. He underlines the fact that it is in the next stage, and not in the current stage which, as we know, Australia is opposed to developing out of, when we would see plutonium used that there is a real risk. President Carter and the Australian Government oppose the development of that stage, and very sensibly. Apart from the moral position in opposing it there is the simple economic fact that if the world went into plutonium there would be no market for our product. The harsh commercial reality, as well as morality, forces us into supplying uranium without further delay. Already there has been a 5-year delay in the development of this energy source in an energy hungry world, and even if the Government goes ahead as fast as it can it will be probably 1980 before we could see a reasonable level of uranium production in Australia going to meet the markets for energy in this world.

The general question of risk is raised by the anti-uranium people when they talk about terrorists. The fact about the terrorist threat is that there are many more easy ways readily available to terrorists to hold the world to ransom, and we have seen them used repeatedly. I do not believe that this is a real case against nuclear power. For heavens sake, the opportunities for using the most horrible chemicals have been with such terrorists for many years, and we have to live with that problem. Another question that arises from the anti-uranium position concerns moral suasion. It is held out to us that if Australia does not develop its uranium resources, if we do not supply this fuel for nuclear power stations, it will dramatise the situation and encourage the rest of the world not to do likewise. This is a very charming proposition but I would like to point out that the only people who could be influenced by such moral suasion are people in countries which are governed by the democratic process where the voice of the people can be heard. Let us face it: There is not much point in people in Hungary trying to use moral suasion; it did not work too well against the tanks last time. The people of Czechoslovakia did not find moral suasion very effective against the Russian military machine. The only place where it would have any effect is in the democracy where the people’s voice is heard. There would be only one effect of moral suasion, assuming that it were successful, and that would be to further diminish the relative strength of the Western democracies against the totalitarian nations which are proceeding apace with nuclear power. The Russians have no such scope for moral scruples even if one concedes that there is a moral point to be had in failing to use uranium. The fact is that the moral suasion point is not only assinine in its effect but also terribly dangerous for the world. It increases independence from fossil fuels of a rival group of, say, totalitarian nations over democratic nations.

Here we have on 2 scores the position being put by the Labor Opposition in this House and by the anti-nuclear campaign around this nation and benefiting a group of people who are in a very interesting situation in this world. In the first place there are the Arab oil producers, and in the second place there are the totalitarian nations. It is interesting to see the Labor Party assisting their cause with such enthusiasm. The fact is that there is no real point anyway in Australia having a moratorium or refusing to supply uranium to the rest of the world. As the Fox Commission has pointed out, if Australia were to stop uranium mining and exports further low cost supplies would become available from higher cost grade ore deposits in other countries to meet any deficiency created by Australia not exporting uranium. Withholding Australian supplies would not appreciably affect United States uranium prices, at least until 1990. The principal effect of not making Austraiian supplies available would be to make it necessary for other countries to put more effort into developing their resources.

Mr Kelly:

-Who said that?

Mr BAUME:

– The Fox uranium inquiry. It seems curious that this sort of evidence is dismissed by the Opposition when it makes the curious points it does. It reminds me of the opposition which I suppose the women’s hysterical lobby had at the time the wheel was introduced. _ _

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Which group?

Mr BAUME:

– Probably it would have been called the women’s hysterical lobby at that time. No doubt it would have objected to the wheel even though ultimately a Miss Boadicea developed this dreadful weapon to its ultimate by fixing very dangerous sabres to the wheel and rushing through the ranks of her opponents with it. The point one should remember about Miss Boadicea is that despite the indiscriminate use of this new and terrible weapon she was eventually defeated by the use of conventional weapons. I do not know which weapon it was but the thing is that it was the wheel and not Boadicea which survived. Certainly there were dangers. Pregnant women riding in carts on wheels may well have suffered miscarriages as a result of the jolting. People could well have been run over by wheels being driven by reckless people. The wheels could have been used to carry guns and other wickedness around the place. People could have suffered heart attacks from driving wheels too fast. There was a dreadful attack on civil liberties because wheels made noise which affected people in the middle of the night, and further, they had to get out of the way of the wheels if they were coming towards them. There is no doubt that if the world had not recognised that the benefits of the wheel were far greater than its risks the wheel would never have been developed. Exactly the same situation exists in relation to nuclear power. ___

Mr YATES:
Holt

– I agree with the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) who passed the remark earlier today that he considered that this debate had been of enormous value not only to honourable members themselves but also to everybody who takes any interest in our future and survival. I was one of the few who worked with the honourable member for Mackellar, Mr Wentworth, in a group of members who were interested in the whole of the nuclear problem facing the nation. I was extremely grateful for the trouble he took to bring the best experts in the land to argue before us the case for and against the problems of. Australia exporting uranium oxide.

It is now 20 years since I first went to Calder Hall in Cumberland and with a nuclear scientist went through one of the earliest British reactors. I do not think anybody should underestimate the fact that there has been only one nuclear accident in Britain. That was at Windscale when a plutonium operation overheated and was closed down. Nobody should underestimate the problems involved. On the other hand, it is not wise for people to build up fears and terror concerning the nuclear age in which we are all living whether we like it or not. -

I want to refer to one of the great problems in front of us. When we talk about uranium and nuclear fission and energy the immediate thought in the minds of many people is death and destruction. They say automatically that this nation must not be party to anything involved with destruction. That is a perfectly honourable and moral attitude to take. It is one which must be respected. However, the whole world has so changed since the dropping of the first and second atomic bombs. We must get used to the world in which we are living. I hope I will not bore the House or those who are listening to me if I tell honourable members how many commercial reactors are in operation in various countries. I shall give a few examples. At this moment France has 10 commercial nuclear reactors in operation. They provide 8.5 per cent of the electricity used in France. Britain has 3 1 commercial reactors in use creating 10 per cent of its electrical energy. The United States has 56 commercial reactors now in operation producing 9 per cent of its electricity. The honourable member for Casey, Mr Falconer, made an exceptionally good speech about Japan. He pointed out that Japan has 13 commercial reactors in operation producing 5.4 per cent of its electrical energy. Some people are astounded when I tell them that Switzerland with only 3 very powerful commercial nuclear reactors is producing 1 7 per cent of its electricity. Honourable members should not suppose that the Soviet Union and other countries are not also using commercial nuclear reactors to produce electricity. I do not wish to take the time of the House to read out the name of every country but there are 1 70 commercial nuclear reactors generating electricity in operation at present. One hundred and twenty-six are on order. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard Table 3 from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission’s twenty-fourth annual report.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr YATES:

-Having brought everybody’s mind to the time in which we are really living, I point out that we can see that the demand for uranium oxide will certainly increase. We forecast that more reactors will be built. One specific argument is worrying us about providing our own uranium. There are scientists who say that the second generation reactor, the sodium reactor breeder, will not require uranium and will use only plutonium. But, as we have already heard from the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume) in a well delivered speech, that operation is being opposed by President Carter at the moment. Scientists are thinking seriously whether the second generation reactors should be allowed to operate.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we now have 25 per cent or more of the world’s reserves of uranium. Has there ever been a time in the history of this great nation when we stood at one of the most decisive moments in history? When before were we so important in the councils of the world? As a nation, we will not allow the export of our uranium to other countries unless we are quite satisfied that we will take full part in every international organisation in the whole of the nuclear energy field. Have we had an opportunity like this before? No, we have not. If we do not take this chance now it may not come again. It is essential for our children, our future and our position in the world that we get on with solving the greatest problem, that is the safeguards which are required. We have talked about safeguards. Did we not hear people using the wonderful expression ‘safeguards’? What safeguards are we talking about? The nuclear non-proliferation Treaty is something with which we can do our very best. It is an international agreement. As some honourable members have said, how can we enforce an international agreement, short of war or doing something like Israel did to rescue its people from Entebbe? How can we be certain that this treaty will work? We cannot. We have to take it on trust. But our own Atomic Energy Commission can take definite action. We are in a position to demand representation on the Atomic Energy Control Commission in Vienna.

I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) last week. I asked whether he could give me the name- just the name- of Australia’s representative on this international Commission. He did not know. I also asked how many inspectors the nation had to police, observe and take part in the work of the Agency. He did not know. These are the questions which the Opposition should be probing. These are the questions which everyone else will be asking in a very short time. Everybody will say: ‘What is Australia actually doing about safeguards’. Will inspectors, for example, be able to observe our uranium arriving in other countries, being loaded into reactors and taken out? What rights will we have in this field? I believe that we must fight for those rights now. I am certain that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is making quite certain on his journey that our voice in the control and inspection of nuclear equipment and material will be one of our great achievements in the closing years of this century. People are going to say about us: ‘They had the courage to realise and to face up to their responsibilities. It was just luck that 25 per cent of the world’s uranium was in their country. They simply did not stand by and behave like a lady of easy virtue and say: “Help yourself”. They said: “We must be certain that we look after it and take care. But if we let this stuff go around the world we are going to police it and do our very best with it”. ‘.

I come to the next argument. Is it too far ahead for us to ask of our friends that we enrich the uranium in Australia ourselves and export it? If a new science is developing concerning the recycling of waste, why should we not have the uranium back and go into the whole of the recycling science here? We are at a wonderful moment in time in a completely new era of a nuclear world. We simply have to get ourselves together and have sufficient courage to go into the world and play our full part. I do not want to say anything too disparaging about the Opposition but I cannot understand the point of waiting for 5 years to find out whether the safeguards would be all right. Members of the Opposition asked: How goes the science for looking after the waste material? Why do we not take part in all these operations ourselves? What are we waiting for? Waiting for Godot, I suppose. Let us not worry about what the Opposition says.

I was very disturbed at a remark by one of the Opposition’s leaders who said that whatever international arrangements this Government made the Opposition might default on them. I have never heard anything so hypocritical and downright dangerous. When we are making international agreements concerning nuclear equipment and this sort of material it should be possible for the 2 front benches to come together and make certain that we do not at a later date let down all our friends, neighbours and the world by ratting on a treaty that we have already negotiated. I have listened to the speeches of the Opposition with great pleasure. I am just sorry that this particular fault seemed to come through from all the Opposition speeches today. I do not want to take the time of the House. Other honourable members want to speak. It has been a most enjoyable debate. This is one of the most serious problems that face us because it concerns our own survival.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question is that the motion be agreed to. This relates to order of the day No. 3, Nuclear Safeguards Policy, Ministerial Statement, motion to take note of the paper.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2477

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT OF THE AUSTRALIAN URANIUM INDUSTRY

Debate resumed from 2 1 April, on motion by Mr Nixon:

That in the opinion of this House the question of further development of the Australian uranium industry, other than to meet export arrangements entered into before December 1972, and the safeguards to be applied to exports under any future contracts should be the subject of further public debate-

Upon which Mr Chipp had moved by way of an amendment:

That the following words be added to the motion: “and that the House is of the opinion that there should be a moratorium of at least 2 years on the mining and exporting of uranium, as mentioned in the Fox Report, to allow sufficient time for public debate, as recommended by the Fox Report, and for further research into the risks involved and possible future energy sources”.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The original question was that the motion be agreed to, to which the honourable member for Hotham has moved as an amendment that certain words be added to the motion. The immediate question is that: ‘The words proposed to be added be so added ‘.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2478

ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEE

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received advice from the Acting Prime Minister that he has nominated Mr Groom to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr Short.

page 2478

OVERSEAS PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the eighth report of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications.

page 2478

NATURE CONSERVATION

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Bass · LP

Pursuant to section 1 1 of the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974 I present an agreement in relation to the provision of financial assistance to Queensland for land acquisition for nature conservation purposes at Cape Cleveland and other areas in 1976-77.

page 2478

YOUNG COMMONWEALTH LEADERS MEETING

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development · Bass · LP

For the information of honourable members I present the report by the honourable member for McMillan who was the delegation leader to the Young Commonwealth Leaders meeting at Ocho Rios, Jamaica in May 1977.

page 2478

ADJOURNMENT

Immigration- Cricket -Miniature Horse Stud-Investment Allowances-Australian Shipbuilding Industry- Fertiliser Bounties-Death of Dutch Ambassador to Australia- Citizen Band Radio

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– My constituent, Mr Noel Ginn of Universal Street, Eastlakes, asked me to raise a matter which concerns immigration. I mentioned it to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar), who I think may be here later. Briefly, this is the situation: Mr Noel Ginn is a personal friend of a Mr Tan, who is a Malaysian. He arranged for his friend Mr Tan to visit Australia. Mr Tan duly departed on 19 March on flight 893A from Kuala Lumpur and arrived at Mascot airport at 9 a.m. on the following day, Sunday, 20 March. I am told that at the time of Mr Tan’s arrival at Mascot airport Mr Ginn was waiting for him as a friend in the outside terminal but they were unable to meet because Mr Tan was detained by the Commonwealth officials there and held in some sort of restraint for some hours. Mr Tan pleaded with the officials to allow him to make some contact with his friend Mr Ginn who was waiting outside. No action was taken. Mr Ginn made inquiries as to whether Mr Tan had arrived at the airport and was told that he had not. He then left the airport.

So the situation was that this young man who flew all the way from Malaysia on 19 March, arrived on 20 March, and was held for some 2 hours at the airport on the basis that there was something wrong with his visa. He had no opportunity to contact his friend who was outside. Mr Tan also had with him a return ticket to Kuala Lumpur, evidence of assets and a key to Mr Ginn’s premises. So there was no doubt about where he was going to stay, no doubt about his intention to return. He was able to look after himself by way of money. He said he was treated very badly during this 2-hour restraint period. He suggested that he should stay. That request was denied and he was instructed to get the first flight back to Kuala Lumpur. Honourable members can imagine the young man’s concern. He had only just arrived. He had been under detention for 2 hours and then been ordered out of the country.

He was then flown to Melbourne, kept under police guard for some time and returned the same day to Kuala Lumpur, where he now is. So the unfortunate gentleman has been put to the trouble and expense of flying to Sydney and returning to Kuala Lumpur from Melbourne being required to return on the basis that there must have been something wrong with his visa. He had no opportunity to contact the friend with whom he was going to stay in Sydney. In his view he is entitled to compensation- certainly to the extent of $910 which was the cost of the return ticket. We are seeking compensation on his behalf. Anybody representing him would say that there must be some explanation of how this happened. He had a passport issued in Malaysia that was used to get him an entry visa to Singapore. I am informed that in that passport he had a visa to enter Australia, that visa having been issued in Singapore on 7 March. The circumstances were that this young man had a passport, had a visa endorsed in it, made a flight, was detained for 2 hours and was treated, as he said, very badly. No effort was really made to contact his friend who was outside. His friend left the terminal and Mr Ginn was immediately removed back to Kuala Lumpur. He is still there. I might add that I asked Mr Ginn if he would kindly get these instructions confirmed by Mr Tan and there is a letter from Mr Tan confirming what I have said. I understand that there is some explanation and I would be grateful to hear it.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I intend reading into Hansard tonight a letter which I directed on 30 May to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar). I do so in order that the record will never be twisted, misunderstood or misconstrued. The letter reads:

My dear Minister,

I write on behalf of Mr and Mrs . . . who complained to me about the activities of the Community Relations Commissioner, the Hon. A. Grassby.

Mr Grassby is reported in the Brisbane Telegraph of 20 April 1977 as claiming that generations of Japanese had been led to believe that “Australians were racists”, and that they, the Japanese, had “been brought up on textbooks critical of the White Australia policy and our treatment of Aborigines.” The newspaper report alleged that Mr Grassby claimed that even in newly produced Japanese textbooks, Australian characteristics were held to include “racial bias”.

Mr Grassby was speaking at a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation seminar on teacher education.

That seminar was held in Adelaide. My letter continues:

Japanese born Mrs . . . , who has been an Australian resident since 1 939 and a citizen since 1 967, had been “distressed and annoyed” by the allegations. She has since checked with many visiting Japanese students, Japanese exchange students presently resident in our country and numerous visiting Japanese businessmen and their wives. She frequently acts as an interpreter for such groups as the latter. She has even written to school-going relations in Japan requesting evidence of Mr Grassby ‘s allegations.

The result gives her even more reason for distress and concern. All those questioned by her advise they have no knowledge of the existence of such textbooks and that it was untrue to say “generations of Japanese had been led to believe Australians were racists”. In accordance with the Racial Discrimination Act, this amounts to a slur upon the Japanese. Besides, I have made my own enquiries. A young Japanese couple, friends of mine, lived with me in my Brisbane home for 15 months. They have no recollection of Australia being presented in their country of origin’s textbooks and teachings as racist.

Is Mr Grassby a student of Japanese? Can he actually provide sufficient examples, if any, of his allegations to sustain his all embracing claims? It is felt by some with whom I have since discussed this matter that this is but one more example of his being prepared to say anything for the sake of saying something to snatch media attention.

On behalf of . . . , I formally lay the complaint that Mr Grassby has made racist statements reflecting upon the Japanese and detrimental to the country which gives him his $36,000 a year salary. I would appreciate your immediately commencing an investigation in accordance with the Racial Discriminauon Act, Part II, Section 9( 1 ).

Yours sincerely,

D.M.CAMERON, MP

Member for Griffith

The letter is now officially on record. Without questioning for a moment the motives of the people who laid the complaint with me, I believe this serves to highlight the need for a change to the present Act.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I wish to raise in the Parliament tonight a matter which I consider to be a great exploitation of people who are commonly called prohibited immigrants. I have spoken with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr McKellar) in regard to this case and I am raising the matter so that I can place on public record the extent to which people who are in the unfortunate situation of being in Australia and classified as prohibited immigrants are being exploited by people who should know better. They are being exploited by solicitors, by one solicitor in particular.

Without naming the person who is classified as a prohibited immigrant, I should like to put into the public record the circumstances of this case. He is a Fijian of Indian origin. He came out to Australia in December 1976. He had been in Australia previously on a tourist visa. Basically he came to Australia with the intention of trying to get the approval of the Australian Government to stay in Australia as a permanent resident. He has a brother in Australia who is an Australian citizen. I do not know who advised this person from Fiji to go to this solicitor, but apparently within the Fijian and Tongan community here in Australia, this solicitor, whose name I will reveal in a few moments, has a name for being able to do something with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I think this is falsely so because all this solicitor seems to do is separate these unsuspecting people from their money.

The solicitor concerned is a Mr D. P. Khoury who practices under the name of Benjamin and Khoury, Solicitors and Attorneys at Law, of 184 Victoria Street, Potts Point. If my memory serves me correctly, when a person becomes a solicitor he becomes a servant or an officer of the court and there are certain ethics involved. One of the ethics, as I understand it, is not to separate poor unsuspecting people from their money. The circumstances of this case are that my constituent, as he is now, within a couple of weeks of arriving in Australia, was advised to see Mr Khoury, the solicitor at Potts Point. The first thing Mr Khoury did was ask my constituent for $300 in cash. On my constituent’s first contact with Mr Khoury, Mr Khoury said to him: ‘Well, the best thing you can do is give me $300.’ My poor unsuspecting constituent paid over that money at the first interview, without, I might add, Mr Khoury even giving him a receipt for the $300. The purpose for my constituent paying the $300 in the first place was to get Mr Khoury to represent him in his attempt to get permanent residency in Australia. On my constituent’s next contact with Mr Khoury he was asked for another $300. That made $600 which my constituent paid to Mr Khoury. Then, on 20 April 1977, some 3 months later, Mr Khoury sent my constituent a letter. I shall read an exerpt from that letter. Mr Khoury says:

We request that you forward to us by return mail an amount of $500 being continuing retainer in this matter. We would appreciate receiving such within 7 days from the date hereof.

That makes a total of $1,100 which this solicitor wanted. Now what was the purpose of him wanting that money? What was the solicitor supposed to be doing? All the solicitor was to do was to get an application form from my constituent to forward to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for the purpose of trying to get him permanent residency in Australia. Up to the present time that form has not been sent to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I am informed by the Department that this Khoury character- I call him that- has purloined money from over 600 clients so far. I ask the Minister to investigate this rapacious solicitor. I ask the Commissioner of Taxation to investigate his activities and I also ask the Law Council to do so because a man like this should not be allowed to practice. He is a disgrace to the Australian legal profession.

Mr BIRNEY:
Phillip

-The dog in the manger attitude of the Australian Cricket Board towards the Packer promotions is a shortsighted attitude towards professional cricket. Unless the Australian Cricket Board does a complete about face, the cricketing public of this country will be the losers. They will then be denied their right of seeing the thrilling spectacle of the world ‘s greatest cricketers doing battle on the playing fields of Australia. As a former first grade cricketer and naturally a lover of the game, like so many thousands of Australians, I welcome the initiatives that lie behind the Packer promotion of a world series in cricket. The greatest single worry of all cricket lovers throughout the world is that the inauguration of a professional series would sound the death knell of the historic England versus Australia test matches as we know them. I have satisfied myself that this need not be the case.

Professional promotion of cricket is as inevitable as was the professional promotion of golf and tennis in this country. To ensure that the super tests and the traditional test series exist side by side is paramount. I believe that it can be achieved only if the Australian Cricket Board will face up squarely and perceive the inevitability of which I speak. There need be no interference with the series in Australia. In the 1979-80 summer no series is planned for Australia. The Australian team is due to tour India and Pakistan during that period. Negotiations on both sides in a spirit of conciliation and compromise can see the super series and the test matches proceeding without interference one from the other.

My investigations lead me to the firm belief that Kerry Packer has requested a meeting with the Australian Cricket Board and that its only response has been that the Board will meet him in due course. I believe that it was foolhardy of the Board’s Secretary in his recent endeavour to fly to England to ‘kill off’ the Packer promotion by inflaming world opinion when neither he nor his Board has signified a willingness to sit down and talk. If this arms length attitude continues, the clear and unmistakable loser will be the public.

The prospect of seeing the best players in the world gathering together in a series of super tests each season must surely excite the interest of even the casual supporter. I believe that the new professional group will provide more opportunity for younger players and that the group’s existence will open up the opportunity for the emergence into international cricket of up and coming players. It will mean that our great players will not be lost to the sport prematurely. Certainly this has been highlighted recently with players like Ian Chappell, Ian Redpath and Ross Edwards quitting the game in their prime.

I recall the old saying that there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear. I believe that if the Board has adopted this attitude- many could be forgiven for believing that it has- it has fallen into grievous error. Let there be no mistake that the Australian Cricket Board over many years has rendered great service to Australian cricket and, as a direct consequence, to all Australians. Let it continue to do so by instigating a conference with the Packer group in an atmosphere of compromise on both sides. I am sure that if this were done common sense would prevail and that it would be to the advantage of all cricket lovers throughout the nation. When one looks at the Board’s itinerary over the next 3 years one sees that only one tour of Australia that is guaranteed of success is planned in the next 3 years.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– It has been prevailed upon me to raise in the Parliament a matter concerning a very enterprising businessman in Sydney whom I have known for many years. I refer to Mr Norman Mitchell, who lives at Pennant Hills. He has a small pony stud farm at Glenorie. In 1972 Mr Mitchell imported three or four miniature ponies. They are known as Falabella ponies. They originated in Argentina 150 years ago. These ponies grow to a height of 36 inches and a maximum weight of 120 lb. Mr Mitchell, being a horse lover, as was his late father, brought in these horses at a cost of about $10,000. They were in quarantine in England for 12 months.

Mr Mitchell is virtually at bursting point now because the Royal Agricultural Society will not give the horse a classification and therefore he cannot exhibit them at its shows. The Australian Pony Stud Book Society will not give them a classification and will not allow them to be registered. That seems to me to be unfair treatment of this decent, enterprising Australian because these horses are recognised in many parts of the world and are exhibited at shows and horse gymkhanas. In Australia the show authorities take an opposite view and will not give them a class.sification. I have before me correspondence between Mr Mitchell and the Australian Pony Stud Book Society. In a letter that the Society wrote to Mr Mitchell it said:

I regret to inform you that your application for the inclusion of Falabella ponies in a section of the Australian. Pony Stud Book was rejected as the Society does not intend opening any new sections in the near future.

That letter was sent to Mr Mitchell on 29 April 1 977. He received a similar letter from the Royal Agricultural Society in Sydney when he made a similar request to have the horses classified and exhibited there. Mr Mitchell has reached the point where he has written to Qantas Airways Ltd to ascertain the cost of disposing of the horses overseas because of what he considers- I believe that he has an argument- to be the unfair treatment of him by the pony club authorities and the Royal Agricultural Society in not allowing him to exhibit bis stock.

Many Australians are greatly interested in these miniature ponies, which, as I have said, grow to a height of only 36 inches. Mr Mitchell has bred several himself since importing them in 1972. They are the world’s smallest horses. People put them in the backs of their cars. They are very intelligent, they are very quiet and placid and they can be used to pull carts and give enjoyment to the children of today. I think that Mr Mitchell has a case. I hope that my remarks in the Parliament will cause many Australians and Australian horse lovers to write to the responsible authorities and appeal to them to have these horses recognised at the eleventh hour before Mr Mitchell makes a final decision to sell them overseas.

Mr GROOM:
Braddon

– I want to use this occasion to raise a matter which is causing me and, I know, a number of my colleagues on this side of the House a great deal of concern at the present time, that is, the very narrow way in which the investment allowance provisions are being interpreted by the Taxation Office and the Department of the Treasury. I refer in particular to those provisions that apply to so-called onetonne commercial vehicles. I believe that many people in the community, particularly small businessmen, have been misled by a good deal of publicity about the investment allowance. They have suffered a very genuine injustice. It is not often that members of Parliament receive complaints which have real merit. I believe this complaint has merit.

People generally were told that they would be entitled to the investment allowance if they purchased a commercial vehicle with a load capacity of one tonne or more or a vehicle that could carry 9 passengers. So many people went to reputable dealers and purchased vehicles which were held out to be of a capacity of one tonne or more. Claims that the vehicles were of this weight were supported by advertising in newspapers, by pamphlets, booklets and so on. There were told that the vehicles had a capacity of one tonne.

Now they find when they lodge their income tax returns that they do not qualify for the investment allowance. This matter is causing hardship to many small businessmen. The main reason for their claims being refused is the very narrow and I believe artificial interpretation being applied by the Commissioner of Taxation. He is saying that in fact passengers who are carried in the vehicle are not part of the load; that the petrol and tools carried by the vehicle are not part of the load; and the tray itself on the back of the vehicle is not part of the load. I believe that this test is too restrictive. It means that many vehicles which are known publicly and generally to be one tonne vehicles do not come within that classification.

Mr Jull:

– Like the Holden.

Mr GROOM:

– Yes, like the Holden. There are a number of examples. I shall not give them now. The point I make is that people have been mislead. Genuine bona fide people have been misled, I believe with all due respect, by publicity that has been put out by the Government as well as by the narrow interpretation applied by the Commissioner of Taxation. I hope that the Treasurer will do something to correct the situation.

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-In the few minutes available to me I should like to make some reference to the plight of the Australian shipbuilding industry, and in particular to the interim report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on industrial support for defence needs and allied matters which was presented today. As a preface to my remarks I remind the House that this is the industry that has been sentenced to death by this Government. I want to bring to the attention of the House some of the human heartbreak and difficulty that has been experienced by families of employees who were previously employed at the Newcastle State Dockyard. I should like to mention 2 instances. The first concerns a family man who has to travel to Sydney each week where he pays $40 a week rent. The family is in desperate difficulty because this man who is well qualified has had to take a much lower paid job. The other example concerns a husband who has left his family because he is simply unable to support his family in the unemployment benefit.

I should like to commend the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the justice of its report. I should like to read into the Hansard a few paragraphs from the report. Paragraph 7.86, in part states:

It considers therefore that steps should be taken urgently to ensure the retention of large shipbuilding facilities in Australia which in the normal course would appear to be almost certain to cease operating in the near future.

This is the only fair and balanced description of the problems of the shipbuilding industry that I have seen. Paragraph 7.87 of the report, in part, states:

It -

That is the Committee- is of the opinion that poor productivity and high costs in the past have stemmed primarily from inadequate work load, outdated plant and bad industrial relations. An important contributory factor has been the inability of the industry to offer ship buyers terms of payment as attractive as those on offer from overseas.

That is a very correct description of what brought about the problems of the shipbuilding industry, leaving out the politics of the matter. I urge the Government seriously to consider and hopefully to accept the recommendations of the Committee which are: the industry to be rationalised; the existing ship construction facilities at Whyalla and Newcastle be retained; there be an injection of capital at both yards on a shared basis, sharing being between the Commonwealth and NSW governments in the case of Newcastle, and between the Commonwealth and the SA governments and BHP in the case of Whyalla, the amount of capital to be that needed to bring the physical capability of each of the yards to a standard matching that of overseas shipyards of similar capacity; there be workload on a continuing basis for the rationalised industry resulting from a ‘build in Australia ‘ policy for Australian ships;

The final section of the paragraph states: . . subject to a suitable manning productivity understanding with the maritime unions, and Australian flag policy for a proportion of overseas trade;

In general I believe that the recommendations of the Committee are practical. I believe they would be acceptable to the people involved in the industry. I believe that they would ensure that we as an island and as a maritime nation would retain a shipbuilding capacity. If the cost of updating the plant is to be shared between governments and the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and there is rationalisation-

Mr Shipton:

– Have you read what I have said?

Mr MORRIS:

– I have read the rather acrimonious dissenting report of the honourable member for Higgins. I dismiss that along with the one page dissenting report of the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Short). However, given his Treasury background that was to be expected. But in general I think the report gives a fair and balanced picture. There have been problems in the industry and I believe that for the first time all of those problems have been correctly identified. They have been put into perspective.

I now want to mention the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission on shipbuilding, namely, that in the event of the industry not continuing, special facilties be provided by the Government to assist employees who would be displaced. A great deal of suffering is occurring in the Newcastle and Hunter regions as a result of the IAC report and the Government’s apparent acceptance of the report. On behalf of those people who are suffering I ask the Government, if it is not going to act on the shipbuilding industry in the near future, at least to implement the recommendations of the IAC in respect of providing special facilties for people in hardship and special facilities for the relocation of the people who are now unemployed as a result of the Government’s decision on this matter.

Mr BRAITHWAITE:
Dawson

– I want to associate myself first of all with the matter that was raised by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) in respect of the investment allowance. This being the last night of the session, the last opportunity we might have to influence, to some extent, Treasury decisions on budgetary matters, I should like to raise one other matter, and that is the future of the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty which, as a result of the last Budget, was decreased from $78 per tonne to $60 per tonne as from the beginning of this year.

As the House recently debated the phosphate fertiliser bounty legislation I thought it was appropriate that I should draw some comparison. The phosphate fertiliser bounty was marginally increased. The Government I believe quite rightly recognised the necessity for the increased bounty to be given to people on the land to whom the use of fertilisers is absolutely essential. Even within the debate on that legislation I can recall the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) saying that this is only part of a return to the rural industry which suffers heavily in the hands of tariffs. It was interesting to hear the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Morris) talk about the death knell of the shipbuilding industry. Let me give the House some costs in relation to this industry. The Australian nation subsidises the shipbuilding industry to the extent of $ 1 9,000 per man per year. The nation subsidises waterside workers to the extent of $13,000 per man per year. The manufacturing industry costs the nation $5,000 per man per year.

Mr Sullivan:

-Who said that?

Mr BRAITHWAITE:

– The very good honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). The rural industry is already suffering, on the estimate of the honourable member for Wakefield to the extent of $2 billion a year. Many people in provincial and capital cities believe that rural industry is heavily subsidised. I refute this claim because most rural industries are self-sufficient. Certainly the Australian Wool Corporation works off loan funds, which are not a subsidy.

The phosphate bounty itself is a subsidy. I believe that a case can and should be made for nitrogen to be subsidised.

I should now like to refer to the Industries Assistance Commission report produced some 2 years ago which suggested a decreasing factor of bounty. In that period we have seen a great increase in costs which the rural industry cannot pass on as far as export markets are concerned. We have seen prices for rural products come down to a point where they are almost meeting the cost factor going up. Wheat, for instance, has dropped from $110 to $90 a tonne, sorghum from $80 to $64 a tonne, and export sugar from $300 a tonne to an average of $235 a tonne. If there were a need initially for this type of subsidy on phosphate and nitrogen, it is even greater today. I believe that the Industries Assistance Commission report, being 2 years out of date, is history and we should not act on it. As was pointed out by the honourable member for Darling Downs nitrogen is absolutely necessary to production in some of the main grain and other agricultural crops in Australia as well as the sugar industry, dairying and the fresh fruit industry. All these industries use a yearly application of nitrogen. It has been argued that because wheat or the grain crops and sugar prospered temporarily a reduction in the bounty would more or less affect them only. This is not the case. There are other users throught rural Australia. It is necessary that they receive the bounty in order to keep costs down to the consumer. There are other users who are not faring as well as the wheat growers and sugar growers.

As I have mentioned, that matter is only relative in any case because the IAC report is some 2 years old. I suggest to the Government that in forming its Budget it recognises the fact that the nitrogen bounty should be retained at the current rate. I fear that any reduction will never be recaptured. If the bounty is wiped out it could mean quite a number of bankruptcies in some rural industries. The alternative will still be a higher price to the consumer as far as the cost of the article is concerned. As rural industries are faced with heavy costs, I suggest to the Government that it look carefully at this matter and retain the bounty at the present figure of $60 per tonne.

Mr SHIPTON:
Higgins

– I wish to rebut totally the speech made a few minutes ago by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). He referred to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Industrial Support for Defence Needs and Allied Matters. The honourable member selectively quoted parts of that report concerning shipbuilding in Australia. He failed to say that what he was talking about was referred to in the report in a defence context. He did not refer to a comment by me in the report, namely, that one of the main problems in the shipbuilding industry in Australia in times gone past was that the defence and commercial interests did not get together.

I believe there was an opportunity in the past for the commercial interests and the Navy to get together to design a ship using Australian innovation. A ship such as the Harrier Carrier could have been developed and constructed. It could have been based on the roll-on roll-off type of vessel. I think it is a tragedy that that did not occur. But so be it. The other point the honourable member for Shortland did not mention was the potential for the smaller and medium sized shipyards in Australia to grow. There are efficient shipbuilding yards in Australia building small and medium sized ships. I believe there is a chance for them to make their contribution by increasing productivity and finding their own mark. I think we will see patrol boats, heavy uplift ships and other ships built in these yards. I am confident of that.

The final matter to which I refer tonight is a sad occasion for Australia and for Canberra and that is the passing in the Hague, Netherlands, earlier this week of the Dutch Ambassador to Australia, Baron van Aerssen. He left Australia a few weeks ago stricken with cancer and passed away earlier this week. I express to the Government of the Netherlands and to his wife my sadness on this occasion. Baron van Aerssen came to Australia as a boy when his father opened the first Dutch mission here. It was a joy to him to return many years later as Ambassador. He enjoyed Australia. He appreciated and spoke of the contribution which members of the Dutch community made in this country. I think that in part he was almost as much an Australian as he was a Dutchman. He had a charming wife. Both of them added to the enjoyment of and contributed to the diplomatic scene and life in Canberra.

Mr JULL:
Bowman

– I will not detain the House for too long. Tonight we learnt that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) announced that the Government has approved the introduction of a licenced citizen band radio service in Australia. I am sure that most honourable members will agree with me when I say that it is probably not before time. There is a great deal of merit in a citizen band radio service. However, I do not think the Government’s problems have ceased with the legalisation of citizen band radio. During the last two to three months I have made it my business to look at the problem of CB radio from both sides, namely, from the side of policing the service and from the side of the operators. Quite frankly, some of the implications of CB radio are very frightening. I shall give a couple of examples. In my home city of Brisbane, we have learnt that CB radio has been used by drug rings, by SP bookmakers and in a number of robberies which have been uncovered by both State and Commonwealth police. We have seen it interfering with television services.

The citizens of Toowoomba had a problem with it because one section of the police radio in Toowoomba was virtually taken off the air one night by the operators of CB radio. The Australian legalisation will enable the 27 megahertz band to be used for 5 years and then it will be transferred to the ultra high frequency band. The fact that the 27 megahertz problem has not been overcome by the decision of the Government is the area which is of concern to me. Obviously, we can register CB radio sets but that does not mean that we will stop interference, that we will stop the pirate use of CB radio sets. At the moment the section which is attached to the Post and Telecommunications Department is desperately understaffed. I do not think it would be fair if I told the House the number of members of that staff who are trying to control CB radio operations in Brisbane. Quite frankly, the situation is frightening. They have had a devil of a job over the last few months in trying to keep the whole matter under control.

Only last week one of the licensed inspectors of the Department was involved in an altercation with an operator of CB radio when the inspector went out to check on a matter. I understand that litigation is following. Inspectors have had problems. They have had problems with truck operators who have been using the radios illegally to warn people of weighing station checks and of police locations. They have had problems with people using CB radio for illegal advertising. They have had problems with people using incredible amounts of power to get the signal from one side of Australia to the other. In Brisbane one set which was seized was attached to a power plant which generated enough power to operate a small commercial radio station. That is an amazing situation. Obviously the appeal must go out to the Minister to check the situation in relation to his inspectors as fast as he possibly can. With the number of inspectors he has at the moment, I cannot see that he will overcome the problems which CB radio has been causing and will continue to cause until such time as CB radio is transferred to the UHF frequency.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I wish briefly to support the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groome) in his complaints about the misleading effect the investment allowance rules is having on many small businessmen. The way in which the Taxation Office applies the formula is totally different from the formula applied by any State government in establishing what is a one ton vehicle. When is a one ton truck not a one ton truck? For an answer we go and ask the Taxation Commissioner. The formula is absurd in the sense that the Taxation Office seems to have gone to a position which is as far removed as possible from the registration requirements for one ton trucks in all States. The word in the legislation is ‘load’, not ‘payload’. If the legislatorsthat is, us- had wanted the word to be ‘payload’ they would have said payload. Many of the people who complain to me wonder, in fact, whether the Taxation Office is implementing the legislation in such a way as to take the burden of the decision making away from the legislators and give it to the Taxation Commissioner himself. I regret that the Commissioner can take the view that 2 people are not part of a load for the purposes of this section but that 9 people are a load in terms of a full load in a passenger vehicle. That is a most extraordinary piece of interpretative gymnastics. I join with the honourable member for Braddon in hoping that the Government either instructs the Taxation Commissioner or changes the law appropriately.

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

– Earlier this evening during the adjournment debate the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) raised the case of Mr Tan Suan Kin. My information is that Mr Tan Suan Kin applied to the Australian High Commission in Singapore early in March 1977 for a visa to enable him to visit Australia as a tourist. It was considered that Mr Tan was not a bona fide tourist and his application for a visa was refused. I should like to bring to the attention of the honourable member what happens when a visa is applied for and refused. A stamp is put in the passport which states ‘Visa applied for’. It is not a visa, it simply alerts any other Australian office to the fact that a visa has been applied for but not granted. The ‘Visa applied for’ stamp was put in Mr Tan’s passport to show that he had applied for a visa but in fact it had not been granted. On 20 March 1977 Mr Tan arrived at Sydney International Airport travelling without a valid visa for Australia. Quite properly, he was refused entry and his departure from Australia was arranged on the same day by the airline which had carried him here. There is no question, on the facts that have been brought to me in relation to this matter, that Mr Tan was properly treated in respect of his attempt to enter Australia. I believe that the facts I have outlined should banish any worries which the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith may have in relation to this matter.

Secondly, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) brought up the question of exploitation of prohibited immigrants and he mentioned a particular solicitor in Sydney. I should like to draw to his attention and to the attention of the House a Press statement I issued on 16 May 1977 headed ‘Exploitation of Prohibited Immigrants’. I shall quote very briefly from that Press statement:

At least one body which receives substantial contributions from its ‘clients ‘ continually makes representations on behalf of visitors, some of who have become prohibited immigrants by overstaying their authorised period of entry.

I should like to make this point:

These cases receive exactly the same consideration in the Department as those in which the people concerned approach the Department directly. The body concerned has absolutely no influence and in some cases appears to have done nothing more for the fees it charges than raise false hopes amongst people who did not meet the criteria for migrant entry or change of status.

Allegations are made from time to time about the fees charged by certain solicitors in various cities and towns throughout Australia. I made a point in the Press statement and I wish to make it again. I quote again from the Press statement:

I note that it has been claimed that certain solicitors have charged large amounts for services related to immigration. People who believe this to be the case should provide the facts to the Law Society in their State of residence.

The honourable member for Banks raised the matter and named a particular solicitor. If people have complaints about solicitors or organisations which they believe are charging unfairly for services which, I reiterate, are available free of charge to people who come to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, then in the case of solicitors they should make the facts available to the Law Society in the State of residence and in the case of any organisation they should make the facts known to me.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.5 p.m. until Tuesday, 16 August next at 2.15 p.m., unless Mr Speaker, or in the absence from Australia of Mr Speaker, the Chairman of Committees as Acting Speaker, shall by telegram or letter addressed to each member of the House fix an alternative day of meeting.

page 2486

TREATIES

The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 2 June 1977, by command of His Excellency the Administrator:

Treaties- Text of-

Exchange of Notes, dated 12 August 1976, between Australia and Nauru, constituting an Agreement amending the 1969 Agreement relating to Air Services.

2 ) Cultural Co-operation Agreement between Australia and Yugoslavia, signed at Canberra on 1 4 September 1976.

Air Transport Agreement between Australia and Burma, signed at Rangoon on 23 September 1 976.

Agreement between Australia and Papua New Guinea regarding the Status of Forces of each State in the Territory of the Other State, signed at Port Moresby on 26 January 1 977.

Exchange of Notes, dated 14 December 1976 and 18 January 1977, between Australia and the United States of America constituting an Agreement regarding the Importation of Meat into the United States.

Exchange of Notes, dated 20 September 1976 and 14 January 1977, between Australia and the United States of America constituting an Agreement concerning the Launching of 6 Aerobee Sounding Rockets.

Trade Agreement between Australia and the German Democratic Republic, signed at Berlin on 22 February 1977.

Memorandum of Agreement, dated 4 February 1977, regarding Project Execution, Procurement and Use of Funds in respect of the Bangladesh Population Project.

World Administrative Radio Conference for the Planning of the Broadcasting-Satellite Service in frequency bands 11.7-12.2 GHz (in Regions 2 and 3) and 1 1.7-12.5 GHz (in Region 1 )- Final Acts, signed at Geneva on 13 February 1977.

page 2487

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice

Judges: Termination of Commissions (Question No. 68)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 22 February 1977:

Is it a fact that in the event of the Government abolishing

the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission,

the Australian Industrial Court, (c) the Federal Court of Bankruptcy, (d) the Family Court of Australia and (e) the Supreme Courts of the Territories, the Government is under an obligation to honour the original commission of the Judges until such time as they die, resign or reach retirement age.

Mr Ellicott:
Attorney-General · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

The question whether, notwithstanding the abolition of the court to which he was appointed, a federal Judge is entitled under the Constitution to continue to hold his commission for life, subject only to the provision for removal from office contained in the Constitution, involves a legal opinion on the interpretation of the Constitution. I am not aware of any authority on this point. The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act (No. 3) 1976 and the Bankruptcy Amendment Act 1 976 provide for the abolition of the Australian Industrial Court and the Federal Court of Bankruptcy, respectively, on dates to be fixed by proclamation. Each of those Acts provides, however, that such a proclamation may not be made whilst any Judge of the court concerned continues to hold office.

The Acts establishing the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory provide, in effect, that a presidential member or a Judge, as the case may be, may not be removed from office before he reaches retiring age (or during his lifetime in the case of those Territory Judges holding appointments for life) except by the Governor-General on an address from both Houses of the Parliament in the same session praying for his removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. This tenure of office having been established by Act of the Parliament, it would appear to be competent for the Parliament to enact legislation making other provision for the removal from office of a presidential member of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or a Judge of the Territory Supreme Court, as the case may be, if the Commission or the Courconcerned were abolished. were circulated:

) If this was intended, what will be the position when, as provided for in section 4 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act (No. 3) 1976, the Australian Industrial Court is abolished by proclamation.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Act (No. 2) 1976, fixed the salaries of the Presidents and Deputy Presidents of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at $40,500 and $39,500 per annum respectively. This was in accordance with the recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal. The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill 1977 now before the Parliament would establish a nexus between the salaries of the President and the Deputy Presidents of the Commission on the one hand, and the Chief Judge and the Judges of the Federal Court of Australia, on the other, by providing that the President and the Deputy Presidents shall receive the same salary and annual allowances as that of the Chief Judge and the Judges of the Federal Court of Australia respectively.

Federal-State Agreements: Consideration by Attorney-General (Question No. 241)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 15 February 1977:

  1. Which Federal-State agreements, other than those in relation to hospital Medibank and South Australian railways, have had his attention (.Hansard, 2 June 1976, page 2792).
  2. 2 ) What has been the result of his consideration of them.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) None, from theiewpoint of the validity of previously existing agreements. I have of course considered agreements in the course of their negotiation with the States since I became Attorney-General. The Agreement with Western Australia on the State Family Court, which was signed on 26 May 1976, and the Agreement that is at present being negotiated with the State for the provision of legal aid by a State Legal Aid Commission are examples.
  2. ) See answer to (1).

Conciliation and Arbitration Commission: Remuneration and Allowances of Presidents and Deputy Presidents (Question No. 70)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. Was it through an omission in the drafting or a decision of policy that section 8 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act left the salary and allowances of the President and the Deputy Presidents of the Commission linked with the decaying Australian Industrial Court whilst the jurisdiction of that Court was transferred to Judges of the Federal Court for whom Schedule 4 of the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Act (No. 2) 1976 provides a higher remuneration.

Chilean, Vietnamese and Timorese Refugees (Question No. 252)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs the following question, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

How many (a) Chileans (b) Vietnamese and (c) Timorese came to Australia as refugees in (i) 1975 and (ii) 1976.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

It is not possible to answer this question without first defining a ‘refugee’.

For many years victims of many different circumstances have been called refugees. These have included displaced and stateless persons, those seeking political asylum, defectors, members of oppressed minorities and victims of natural disasters.

In 1951 the United Nations adopted a Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This included a definition of a refugee as ‘any person who, owing to well-founded fear, of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political group, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

Following is the number of refugee arrivals recorded in 1975 and 1976:

In addition, 359 evacuees from Vietnam arrived prior to the fall of Saigon in April 1 975 and 240 Cambodian and 326 Laotian refugees arrived in 1976.

Other Chilean arrivals include some refugees who have been classified for statistical purposes under normal migrant entry categories.

In 1975, Australia also accepted 2581 evacuees from East Timor. Of these, 1850 remained here.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Staff and Program Cuts (Question No. 258)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

Will he bring up to date his answer on the program and staff cuts which the Australian Broadcasting Commission has had to make as a result of reduced grants by the Government (Hansard, 4 June 1976, page 3 110).

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

In television, the Australian Broadcasting Commission has discontinued the public affairs program ‘ State of the Nation ‘, a weekly program of 40 minutes duration which had been resumed after a previous discontinuation. It has also discontinued ‘Today at One’, a 30-minute weekday program in South Australia. Expenditure on ‘This Day Tonight’ and Four Corners’ has been reduced. The coverage of minor sports has been curtailed, while several projected television drama productions have been postponed.

In radio, separate evening programs for the various stations of ABC Radio 1 have been discontinued; these are now uniform for all capital cities. In the evening, Radio 3 now transmits the programs of Radio 2. Regional sporting services have been reduced. Recess periods over the Christmas period have been extended. The number of contract correspondents overseas and the allocation of funds for overseas communication circuits have been reduced. Radio dramas have been selected on the basis of lower cost. A projected America tour of the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra has been abandoned. The continuing reduction in staff has been confined to ‘natural wastage’, without further termination of services by the Commission.

Applications for Resident Status (Question No. 361)

Mr Abel:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on IS March 1977:

How many-

visitors in Australia; and

persons outside Australia

applied for; and

received permanent residence in each of the years 1971 to 1976 inclusive.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. a ) Statistics showing the number of visitors applying for and receiving resident status in Australia were not maintained prior to 30 June 1 974. Those available are as follows:

    1. (i) It is only since 1975 that statistics maintained overseas have been consolidated to show the total number of persons covered by applications lodged, and the task of collating earlier figures now would be of major proportions. Available statistics show that during 1975 and 1976 the numbers of persons covered by applications received were 139 929 and 123 471 respectively.
    2. Persons granted authority for entry for permanent residence who have actually arrived in Australia for the periods requested are:

Public Service: Appointments (Question No. 432)

Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Chairman of the Public Service Board appoint a committee to prepare and furnish to him a written report nominating persons considered suitable for appointment as Secretary to the Department of Productivity?
  2. If so, who were the members of the committee and did its report contain the Chairmen’s name as a person considered suitable for that appointment?
Mr Macphee:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

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

See the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 424 (House of Representatives Hansard, 24 May 1977, page 1778).

Commonwealth Electoral Roll: Classification of Married Women (Question No. 476)

Mr Carige:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. Under what title can married women engaged in home-making duties in their own home be classified in the Commonwealth Electoral Roll.
  2. Is there any plan to give a title in keeping with the move by women of Australia seeking recognition for the work done in the home, Le. home executive.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. The classification of occupation to be shown on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll is provided initially by a claimant on the claim card when seeking enrolment. Where a claimant endorses occupation as ‘home duties’ or ‘housewife’ the occupation is normally entered in the Roll in the abbreviated form ‘HD’.
  2. There is no plan by the Australian Electoral Office to substitute another title in such cases. However, it is the prerogative of each claimant to endorse his or her occupation on the claim card when seeking enrolment. Should an elector record ‘home executive ‘ or other apposite classification on his or her claim card, the Australian Electoral Office would enter these details on the Roll using, as necessary, an appropriate abbreviation.

Darwin Trader’: Operating Results (Question No. 674)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

What were the operating results of the Australian National Line vessel Darwin Trader in each of the years it has been in service to Darwin.

Mr Nixon:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

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

The Australian National Line has advised me that the operating results of the Darwin Trader in the Darwin trade, including backloading of manganese ore, are as follows:

International Airlines: Food and Water Supplies (Question No. 690)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to reported cases of water or food poisoning on a recent KLM flight to Sydney.

    1. What precautions are taken either by his Depanment or by corresponding authorities overseas, to ensure that water and food provided to international air travellers on the journey to and from Australia are free from contamination.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Food and water supplied to international airlines leaving on flights from Australia is provided by the 3 Australian airlines. The kitchens, in Melbourne, used in the preparation of the food are subject to periodic inspections by my Department as to the standard of hygiene and food handling. Kitchens in Sydney, except those of Qantas which are outside the airport boundaries and therefore outside the jurisdiction of my Department, are subject to less frequent inspections. However Qantas have a health inspector who monitors their flight kitchens. Food samples from the Sydney flight kitchen are regularly checked for bacterial content and Qantas have recently appointed a bacteriologist-food technologist. With the co-operation of the Depanment of Science, microbiological surveys are carried out on a weekly basis on selected food and water samples in Melbourne and Sydney. My Depanment is not in a position to exercise control over the standard of food and water provided for passengers on international nights on the journey into Australia. The standards of food and water provided on such flights are, of course, a matter of major concern to the airlines concerned but I am not able to say, at this time, what precise supervision is exercised by overseas authorities.

Immigration: Arrivals and Departures (Question No. 632)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) What were the countries of last residence of the settlers who have arrived since June 1 976.
  2. How many-

    1. assisted settlers and
    2. other settlers have arrived from each of these countries in each month since June 1976.
  3. 3 ) How many persons are still seeking to come from those countries.
  4. What were the countries of intended future residence of the Australian residents who have departed permanently since June 1976.
  5. How many-

    1. former settlers and
    2. b) other Australian residents departed for each of those countries in each month since June 1 976.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) Statistics relating to-

    1. the number of assisted settlers and
    2. b ) other settlers who arrived in Australia in each month from July 1 976 to March 1 977 are given according to countries of last residence in Table 1 below.
  2. The latest available information on the numbers of persons who have applied to migrate to Australia since June 1976 is in Table 2 below.

The application rate alone does not give a full indication of the level of interest in migration to Australia nor does it show the level of applications in process. The first enquiry rate reveals a higher level of interest but the figures maintained relate only to cases and not to the numbers of persons involved and are hence not quoted.

An illustration of the continuing interest in migration to Australia is the 66 per cent increase in the number of persons included in nominations scheduled to overseas posts by mi- f ration offices in Australia from 1 July 1976 to the end of pril 1977 compared with the same period in 1975-76. This is equivalent to a proportional annual rate of 64 000 persons nominated. This figure excludes the exceptional increase in nominations resulting from the special consideration given to the entry of people from the Lebanon under relaxed criteria.

  1. and (5) Table 3 below provides the latest available information on former settlers and other residents departing from Australia, given according to countries of proposed future residence. It relates to the period July to November 1976.

Community Health Centres (Question No. 631)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. Will there still be 207 community health centres operating in New South Wales, 41 in Victoria, 21 in Queensland, 17 in South Australia, 7 in Western Australia and 8 in Tasmania with Australian government assistance at 30 June 1977 (Hansard, 1 December 1976, page 3098).
  2. What were the locations of (a) the projects in Queensland and Western Australia which had ceased operations between 30 June and 1 December 1976 and (b) any other projects which have since ceased operations.
  3. What are the former and present locations of the projects which at 1 December 1976 were providing services from temporary premises pending completion of construction of permanent premises.

(3)-

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

For the purpose of answering this question, the definition of a ‘community health centre’ is consistent with the definition in my answer to question No. 983 (Hansard, 1 December 1976, pp. 3098-9).

The following information has been provided or confirmed by the relevant State health authorities:

1 ) Yes, except for Western Australia. At the time of my reply to question No. 983, it was expected that there would be 7 community health centres operating in Western Australia as at 30 June 1977. However, funding of one centre, which had ceased, has since been recommenced. Accordingly it is expected that, at 30 June 1977, there will be 8 community health centres operating in Western Australia.

(a) 18 Cairns Street, Red Hill, Qld 4059. 21 Glendower Street, Perth, W.A. 6000.

No other Community Health Program funded community health centres have ceased operations since 1 December 1976.

Minister for Foreign Affairs: Visit to Bali (Question No. 663)

Mr Fry:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) At what local time and by what airline did he and his wife arrive at Bali on 24 September 1 975?
  2. Where, when and with whom did he have dinner on that day?
  3. Where and when did he attend the monkey dance?
  4. To what motel were he and his wife taken, and at what time were they taken there?
  5. 5 ) Where, when and for how long did he have discussions with the two Indonesian officials who met him?
  6. Who was present at those discussions?
  7. Did he make a record or note of his discussions?
  8. Does his Depanment have any record or note of his discussions?
  9. Was he in touch with Indonesian authorities about his visit to Bali before he arrived there?
Mr Peacock:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

I refer the honourable member to my answer to a question in Parliament on 3 May.

Electoral Divisions: Statistics (Question No. 670)

Mr Abel:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 1 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the enrolment for each electoral division as at (a) 30 June 1971 and (b) the 1976 Census.
  2. ) What percentage increase or decrease do each of these 1976 figures represent over the 1 97 1 figures.
  3. What was the total population of each electoral division as at (a) 30 June 1971 and (b) the 1976 Census.
  4. What percentage increase or decrease do each of these 1976 figures represent over the 1 97 1 figures.
Mr Street:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2), (3) and (4). The information sought by the honourable member is set out in the following table compiled by the Australian Electoral Office.

Ministers: Use of Charter Aircraft (Question No. 721)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 April:

  1. 1 ) What was the cost of charter aircraft made available to each Minister during the periods (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 31 December 1975, (b) 1 January 1976 to 31 December 1976 and (c)1 January 1977 to 31 March 1977.
  2. For what purposes are charter aircraft made available to Ministers.
  3. Must each request for the use of a charter aircraft be made separately and approved separately by the Minister.
  4. Does any Minister have standing approval for the use of chaner aircraft without making separate requests; if so, who are the Ministers, and why do they have standing approval.
Mr Street:
LP

-The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question.

  1. 1 ) Details for chaner aircraft costs within Australia are set out in the table below prepared in my Department from accounts processed as at 20 May 1977.
  1. Generally charter aircraft are made available to Ministers to assist them carry out their portfolio responsibilities in circumstances where commercial services are unavailable or would not allow commitments to be met.
  2. Yes except as in (4).
  3. I do not require the Prime Minister to seek my approval to use charter aircraft. Approval was given in September 1 975 for the Minister for Transport to use charter aircraft during Parliamentary sitting weeks for travel between his place of residence, Orbost, and Canberra, because Orbost is isolated from regular transport services. This approval will be reviewed should circumstances change.

Migrant Settlement in Calare Electoral Division (Question No. 731)

Mr MacKenzie:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

How many migrants settled in the electoral division of Calare during 1974, 1975 and 1976, and from which countries did they come?

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

Some information on migrant settlement within the electoral division of Calare will be provided when the detailed analysis of 1976 Census data is completed. This material is expected to be available in the latter half of 1978.

Citizen Band Radio (Question No. 737)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

  1. Has he taken any steps to restrict the entry into Australia of radio transceivers used illegally by citizens band operators.
  2. If not, does that indicate that he is not concerned at these illegal operations or the effects that technically deficient equipment will have on legally authorised users of radio frequencies.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, the question of legislation which might be used to enable adequate control to be exercised over the importation of radio equipment into Australia is currently being examined.
  2. Not applicable.

Australian National Railways: Transportation and Mechanical Engineering Branches (Question No. 764)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What are the present strengths in each of the various running grades classifications in the Transportation Branch of the former Commonwealth section of the Australian National Railways.
  2. How do these figures compare with each of the previous 2 years.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Present strength in each of various running grades classifications in Transportation and Mechanical Engineering Branches compared with previous two years:

Ethnic Groups represented in Evans Electoral Division (Question No. 782)

Mr Abel:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1 977:

  1. 1 ) With reference to his answer to my question No. 1639 (Hansard, 22 February 1977, page 327), will he now provide 1 976 census figures for the number of people in each of the ethnic groups known to reside in the electoral division of Evans.
  2. What percentage of the persons in each group referred to in part ( 1 ) is estimated or known to have taken Australian citizenship.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I understand that detailed tabulations of individual electorates will not be available until the latter half of 1978. The Australian Statistician has, however, indicated that he will be producing, in the near future, a limited range of statistics which will show for each electorate the population in the following birth place groups:

Australia

Great Britain and Ireland

Other overseas

Not stated.

The Australian Statistician has also indicated that, as soon as this material becomes available, he will supply each member and senator with information in respect of his or her electorate or State and that a copy of the information on all electorates and States will be provided to the Parliamentary Library.

Telephone Services: Disconnection (Question No. 783)

Mr Abel on 3 May 1977 asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

1 ) What is the period by which accounts received by subscribers for telephones in private homes have to be paid before their telephone services are disconnected.

How many services were disconnected for this reason during each of the last5 years.

What is the period by which accounts received for telephones in Government Departments and agencies have to be paid before their telephone services are disconnected.

How many of the services referred to in part (3) were disconnected because of non-payment of accounts during each of the last 5 years.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) 28 days as a minimum.
  2. 1972-90 516; 1973-98 078; 1974-96 653; 1975-92 637; 1976-100 922.
  3. The period allowed for payment is the same as for private subscribers, however, for the reasons given in (4) below, services leased by Government Departments and agencies are not normally subject to disconnection for nonpayment of accounts.
  4. No services of Government departments and agencies were disconnected during the last 5 years. Telecom Australia accepts that Government departments and agencies do not constitute a credit risk and, therefore, the protection of Commission’s revenue through the restriction of services is not necessary. As well, Government departments and agencies use their telecommunication services to maintain contact with the community they serve and in view of this the community would be disadvantaged if such action were taken.

East Timor (Question No. 807)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 4 May:

As a result of the visit to East Timor in April 1977 by two officers from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta to gain first hand information about the use of the Australian contribution to the Indonesian Red Cross for humanitarian assistance in East Timor, is he now able to give an estimate of (a) the proportion of the territory of East Timor which is accessible to the Indonesian Red Cross and to Indonesian officials and ( b ) the percentage of the population of east Timor which can be contacted by the Indonesian Red Cross and by Indonesian officials (Hansard, 14 October 1976, page 1837 and 9 December 1976, page 3721).

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The officers from the Australian Embassy in Jakarta who visited East Timor in April reported that in general East Timor could be divided into three parts:

    1. the towns and environs which are completely and directly controlled by the Indonesian authorities;
    2. small areas in the hills which are controlled by Fretilin; and
    3. areas which make up a kind of ‘no-man’s land’ covering the remainder of East Timor. The Indonesian authorities appear to be able to move into and out of these areas at will.

Other information available to the Government supports this report.

  1. The Government has no figures which would allow it to estimate exactly the percentage of the popular_n of East Timor which can be contacted by the Indonesian Red Cross and Indonesian officials. The Australian Embassy officers estimated tentatively that all but a small percentage of the population is in the areas described in (a) (0 and (iii) above.

Stuart Highway (Question No. 854)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What has been the Federal Government expenditure on (a) maintenance, and (b) sealing of lengths of road for the Stuart Highway between Alice Springs and Port Augusta for each of the years 1 965-66 to 1 97 1 -72, for the period June 1972 to December 1972 and December 1972 to June 1973, and for each of the years 1 973-74 to 1 976-77.
  2. ) What distances were sealed for each of these years and periods.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Available expenditure figures for maintenance and sealing works and of length of highway sealed between Port Augusta and Alice Springs during each year are shown in the table below.

Works on the Stuart Highway in the Northern Territory are funded under the Northern Territory Civil Works Program and the information has been provided by the Department of Construction. Works on this Highway within South Australia are currently funded under the National Roads Act 1974. Prior to the 1974 Act assistance for roads in South Australia was provided under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act but all expenditure on the Stuart Highway was not necessarily financed from Commonwealth funds. No certified statements of expenditure under the National Roads Act are available. The estimates for expenditure for maintenance and construction are based on preliminary information provided around the commencement of the financial years in question, as such are provisional and do not necessarily represent final expenditure. Lengths of seal shown in the table below for the Stuart Highway in South Australia are taken from the annual reports of the South Australian Highways Department.

Australian Population and Immigration Council (Question No. 867)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Who are the present members of the Australian Population and Immigration Council.
  2. When was it reconstituted.
  3. How many committees of the Council have been set up, and what are their titles and areas of responsibility.
  4. Who are the members of each of these committees.
  5. How many times has (a) the Council and (b) its committees met since the Council’s reconstitution.
  6. How many times has each member of (a) the Council and (b) each committee been present at such meetings.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Chairman: The Hon. M. J. R. MacKellar, M.P. Members: Professor W.D. Borrie, O.B.E. Dr L. A. Brodribb, Dr D. R. Cox, Mr J. A. Gobbo, Q.C., Mr R. J. Hawke, Professor W. P. Hogan, Mr J. A. Kiosoglous, S.M., Mr G. Lapaine, Professor J. D. B. Miller, Dr G. M. Neutze, Mr G. Polites,

M.B.E., Mr J. B. Reid, Or A. Richardson, Mr H. J. Souter, A.M., Professor R. J. Walsh, AO., O.B.E.

  1. 31 March 1976.
  2. There are three committees of the Council and they have responsibility for advising on the following matters:

Demography Committee

Monitoring of current demographic trends in Australia

Implications of theNational Population Inquiry Reports

Research concerning population and immigration.

Migration Planning Committee

Monitoring community response to Green Paper Immigration Policies and Australia ‘s Population ‘

Annual migration intakes

Sources of migrants

Implications of migration for international relations matters

Social Studies Committee

Reviewing Australia ‘s procedures for selection and conselling of migrants

Sociological implications of demographic change

  1. , (5) and (6) Since it was reconstituted, the Council has met 3 times, the Demography Committee 3 times, the Mi- grationplanningCommittee7timesandthesocial Studies Committee 4 times.

Migrants: Maintenance Guarantees and Special Benefit (Question No. 888)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. How many migrants, whose sponsors provided maintenance guarantees for them prior to their entry into Australia, are in receipt of special benefit payments.
  2. What action is taken to see that the obligations of the maintenance guarantees are enforced.
  3. ) Under what circumstances are sponsors released from the obligations of the maintenance guarantees.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) An accurate figure is not available. As at 3 1 December 1976 the Department of Social Security was paying special benefit to some 553 persons who did not qualify for a pension, because they lacked residence qualifications. Persons for whom maintenance guarantees were provided constitute pan but not all of this number.
  2. and (3) The provision for maintenance guarantees is contained in the Migration Regulations which are the responsibility of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs from whom the required information should be sought.

Family Court, Parramatta Registry: Clerical Staff (Question No. 899)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

How many clerical staff were employed at the Parramatta Family Court when it had (a) 2, (b) 3, and (c) 4 Judges.

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. The Parramatta Registry of the Family Court of Australia was officially opened on 1 September 1976. Two Judges were sitting at the Parramatta Court at that date and were serviced by a total of 21 supporting staff within the following categories:

Registrar- 1

Personal Secretaries to Judges- 2

Counsellor- 1

Court Reporters- 2

Typists-2

Clerks and Clerical Assistants- 1 3

  1. At the time of the appointment of a third Judge to the Parramatta Court on 13 April 1977, a total of 39 supporting staff were on duty in the following categories:

Registrar- 1

Personal Secretaries to Judges- 3

Counsellors- 5

Court Reporters- 3

Typists-5

Clerks and Clerical Assistants- 22

  1. A fourth Judge has not been appointed to the Family Court of Australia at Parramatta.

Australia-Japan Trade Law Foundation: MrK.C.Gale (Question No. 955)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 27 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what years has his Department made contributions to the Australia- Japan Trade Law Foundation and what was the contribution in each year.
  2. Was Mr Keith Compton Gale, who is reported to have misappropriated over $900,000 from the Gollin companies in August 1974 and subsequent months, a member of the Foundation’s board.
  3. If so, (a) between what dates was Mr Gale a member of the Board (b) what are the names and addresses of the other persons who were members of the board between those dates and (c) have auditors reported on the use to which his Department’s contributions were put between those dates.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government has granted the Foundation the sum of $5,500 in each of the last two financial years.
  2. ) My Department has been informed by the Foundation that:

    1. Keith Compton Gale has been a member of the Executive Council of the Foundation since 4 October 1973;
    2. Mr Gale requested, and was granted, leave of absence from that position for 6 months from 12 May 1977.
  3. (a) See (2) above.

    1. My Department has been informed by the Foundation that the persons who have been members of the Executive Council since its incorporation and their addresses as recorded by the Foundation, are:

Ellicott, Robert James-9 Wickham Cres., Red Hill, A.C.T., from 14 September 1973 until 12 March 1976.

Vernon, James- 27 Manning Road, Double Bay, N.S.W., since 4 October 1973.

Allan, David Ernest- 41 Bordeaux Avenue, Doncaster, Vic., since 4 October 1973.

Graig, James John-25 Leura Grove, Hawthorn East, Vic, since 4 October 1973.

Creer, James Neill- 49A Braeside St, Wahroonga, N.S.W., since 14September 1973.

Davenport, Jack Napier- 53 Malton Road, Beecroft, N.S.W., since 4 October 1973.

Dixon, Peter John-90 Hawkesbury Cres., Farrer, A.C.T, from 4 October 1973 until 7 November 1974.

Gale, Keith Compton-3 Honda Road, Neutral Bay, N.S.W., since 4 October 1973.

Gilchrist, Hugh-5 Grey Street, Deakin, A.C.T., from 4 October 1973 until 12 March 1976.

Hermes, Clarence Lindsay- 68 Birdwood St, Hughes, A.C.T., from 4 October 1973 until 12 May 1975.

Lockhart, John Stanley- 3 Garden Square, Gordon, N.S.W., since 4 October 1973.

McComas, William Robert- 8A Warrimoo Ave, St Ives, N.S.W., since 14 September 1973.

Ryan, Kevin William- 15 Orkney Street, Kenmore, Qld, since 14 September 1973.

Stevenson, William Robin Dill- 7 Illeroy Ave, Killara, N.S.W., since 14 September 1973.

Sutton, Kenneth Coleridge Turvey- 10 Taunton Street, Pymble, N.S.W., since4October 1973.

Tuckfield, John Henton- 17 The Cresent, Vaucluse, N.S.W., since 14September 1973.

Walsh, David Anthony- 4 Haverbrack Ave, Malvern, Vic., since4October 1973.

Field, Peter Stewart-8 Tullaroop St, Duffy, ACT., from 7 November 1974 until 12 March 1976.

Bennett, Henry Trevor- 28 Rankin Street, Campbell, A.C.T., since 17 June 1975.

Byers, Maurice Hearne- 14 Marella Road, Clifton Gardens, N.S.W., since 12 March 1 976.

Nygh, Peter Edward-78A Mona Vale Road, Pymble, N.S. W., since 4 October 1973.

Fitch, Donald Richard-36 Mockridge Cres., Holt, A.C.T., since 5 November 1976.

Vincent, Anthony Lionel- 46 Brookman St, Torrens, A.C.T., since 5 November 1976.

  1. My Department has been provided with a copy of the accounts of the Foundation for the year ended 30 June 1976 and also with a copy of the accounts for the six month period ended 31 December 1976. I am informed that these have been audited as required by the Companies Ordinance (A.C.T.).

Attraction of Skilled Migrants (Question No. 101)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

What were the amounts spent in each of the last 6 years on (a) advertising, (b) promotional activities and (c) incentive schemes to attract skilled migrants to settle in Australia.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. Advertising

Direct advertising: Australia may advertise freely in Britain. In some European countries, Australia has been allowed to advertise for workers with specific skills or qualifications. In 1976-77 the only direct advertising undertaken was in Britain. The expenditure indicated is to the end of April 1977.

Indirect advertising: In most countries of Europe direct advertising for migrants is not allowed. Therefore, advertising in those countries has been in more general terms. Advertising in the United States has drawn attention to the availability of free immigration literature about Australia to counter the activities of those individuals and organisations selling information about Australia.

  1. Promotional activities i.e. Film evenings, “Open Days”, Displays, Posters and Newscasters.
  1. c) Incentive schemes to attract skilled migrants to settle in Australia.

Skilled workers have been attracted to Australia by means of assisted passages. These can be arranged in accordance with the terms of bi-lateral migration agreements or under the Special Passage Assistance Programme.

To avoid delay in placement in employment skilled tradesmen travelling by air to Australia are entitled to an additional baggage allowance of 16 kilograms so that they may bring tools of trade with them.

On arrival in Australia skilled workers and their families are eligible to be accommodated in migrant hostels which are located in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia.

Accommodation at the hostel for the family is provided free for the first week unless employment has been found. A special benefit is then paid partly to offset hostel tariffs until work is obtained when ordinary migrant tariffs apply.

Arrangements can also be made for skilled workers and their families to be accommodated in fully furnished selfcontained flats for up to 6 months.

As accounts maintained in respect of payments for assisted passages and related costs show only total expenditure incurred, the amount payable for skilled workers and thendependants cannot be dissected.

Radioactivity: Woronora River (Question No. 173)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. What is the internationally accepted level of radioactivity in water.
  2. Are reports that over 1 million gallons of radioactive waste is pumped into the Woronora River each month accurate.
  3. If so, what is the estimated time lag before the Woronora River is so contaminated as to prevent its safe use by humans.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. I am advised that the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends a maximum premissible concentration in water for each of a large number of radioisotopes. The World Health Organisation recommends minimum standards for the quality of drinking water which are consistent with ICRP recommendations. Both sets of recommendations have been adopted in whole or in part by a number of countries, including Australia. The limits for radioactivity in drinking water for individual members of the public, based on the above recommendations, range from 3 microcuries per litre for tritium to 10-5 microcuries per litre for radium.

There are no internationally accepted concentration limits for radioactivity in sea water or in waste discharged because resulting human exposure to radiation depends markedly on circumstances. The ICRP in 1965 recommended that where low activity wastes are discharged to the environment, the pathways by which the released radioactive materials may cause radiation exposure to the public be identified and the levels of radioactive content (not the concentrations as such) released be limited to ensure that individual exposures do not exceed recommended limits.

  1. The Research Establishment of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission discharges about nine million litres of waste water each month to the non-potable upper tidal reaches of the Woronora River. The average amount of radioactivity contained in this water is six to seven millicurie, of hard beta-emitters, 0.1 millicuries of aplha-emitters and three curies of tritium. As this is diluted by the nine million litres of waste water mentioned above, the levels of radioactivity involved are substantially less than the internationally accepted levels of maximum permissible concentration.

I do not have any knowledge of radioactive waste that may be pumped into the Woronora River by other persons or organisations.

  1. Contamination of the Woronora River by the waste water discharged from the Research Establishment of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission could not prevent its safe use by humans.

Australian Atomic Energy Commission: Radioactive Waste (Question No. 176)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What methods are used to dispose of radioactive waste from the Atomic Energy Commission’s nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.
  2. What safety measures are undertaken to ensure maximum protection from the effects of the waste.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) I am advised that radioactive wastes from nuclear reactors at Lucas Heights are disposed of in conjunction with other radioactive wastes from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission ‘s research establishment as follows:

    1. low level liquid waste is treated and discharged to the upper tidal reaches of the Woronora River;
    2. intermediate and high level liquid wastes and all solid waste are stored on the site; and
    3. gaseous waste is treated and discharged to the atmosphere.
  2. Saftey measures taken to ensure maximum protection from the effects of radioactive wastes at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission ‘s research establishment are:

    1. Low level liquid waste from all sources is collected in a drainage system completely separate from other waste water systems. After treatment to remove noxious contents, the liquid is combined with other treated waste water streams. This is sampled and analysed and then discharged, if the analyses have shown that any pollutants it contains do not exceed levels set by appropriate authorities of the N.S.W. Government, to the non-potable upper tidal reaches of the Woronora River. Levels of radioactive content are set out in a discharge authorisation approved by the N.S.W. Health Commission based on the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection on the exposure of the general public to ionising radiations; levels of radioactivity in the Woronora River are regularly monitored.
    2. Intermediate and high level liquid wastes containing radioactivity are collected separately from other liquid wastes at their point of origin. They are stored in special shielded containers in a secure area of the site and regularly monitored.
    3. All solid wastes that do, or may, contain radioactivity are collected separately from other solid wastes at their points of origin. Wastes containing low and intermediate levels of radioactivity are compacted into plastic-lined mild steel drums, which are sealed a stored in a secure weathertight building and regularly monitored. Wastes containing high levels of radioactivity are stored in shielded concrete or stainless steellined repositories, which are weatherproof and waterproof, in a secure area of the site and regularly monitored.
    4. Airborne waste from areas where radioactivity is, or may be, used is filtered or otherwise treated to remove radioactive materials other, than some gaseous radioisotopes. Gaseous material is discharged to the atmosphere through forced ventilation and high stacks. Levels of radioactive content are set out in a discharge authorisation approved by the N.S.W. Health Commission; discharges are monitored to ensure these levels are not exceeded.

Radioactivity: Woronora River (Question No. 177)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for ‘ National Resources, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. What monitoring of the levels of radioactivity in the Woronora River are undertaken by the Atomic Energy Commission or other Federal departments or agencies.
  2. How regularly are the levels of radioactivity in the river measured.
  3. What are the results of the measurements during the last 16 years.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has carried out since 1959 a comprehensive program of monitoring the levels of radioactivity in the Woronora River, in biological materials associated with it, and on beach and bottom sands. I am not aware of any other Federal departments or agencies that monitor the levels of radioactivity in the Woronora River. However, appropriate authorities of the N.S.W. Government may undertake such monitoring as they may require.
  2. 2 ) The levels of radioactivity in materials associated with the Woronora River are measured at the following intervals: river water- 52 times per annum oysters- 4 times per annum beach sands- 4 times per annum bottom sands- 4 times per annum fish- 4 times per annum zostera- 4 times per annum
  3. The results of the measurements, and of other environmental surveying, for the period December 1959 to December 1974 are contained in AAEC reports E151, E151 Sup 1 , El 5 1 Sup 2, E 1 5 1 Sup 3, E246, E27 1 , E30 1 , E335 and E375 which are available in the National Library. Reports for 1 975 and 1 976 are in preparation, but the results show no significant variation from those of previous years.

This work was summarised for the decade 1 960- 1969, and the significance of the results assessed, in a paper presented to the Fourth United Nations Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy in Geneva in 1971. This paper (A/Conf. 49/P/800) was published in Volume 1 1, page 34 1 , of the proceedings of the Conference, which is available in the Parliamentary Library.

OECD Report on Australia: Disposable Incomes (Question No. 293)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the OECD Report on Australia draw attention to the expected decline in real household incomes during 1976.
  2. Can he say how much real household incomes actually fell during 1976, taking account of the new CPI figures, which are much higher than those predicted by the OECD.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Table 12 on page 42 of the OECD Report on Australia, December 1976 forecasts a decline of 0.5 per cent in real disposable income in 1976. That forecast was made prior to publication of the September or December quarter 1 976 national accounts.
  2. Household disposable income is a national accounts concept. As such it is appropriately expressed in constant price terms by using the implicit price deflator of private final consumption expenditure derived from the accounts. On this basis, real household disposable income is estimated to have risen by 0.3 per cent in 1 976 as a whole, and in the December quarter of 1976 to have been 1.2 per cent above its level a year earlier.

Imports of Tropical Products (Question No. 340)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice, on 10 March 1 977:

  1. With reference to his media release dated 29 December 1976 concerning trade concessions on tropical products from developing countries will he supply details of the quantity, value and origin of all imports to Australia of the commodities listed in the attachments to his media release during the last 2 years.
  2. If imports continue at the rates of the last 2 years, what is the total value of the concessions.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) Set out below are the requested details in respect of all products for which recorded information is available for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76. In the case of items for which information is not available, the item is included in the list with a note concerning the lack of relevant detail. The annual value of recorded imports under items on which a concession involved a reduction in duty was, on average, approximately $32m whilst for those items where the concession involved binding of rates at zero level against future increase the figure was $43m. It should be noted that in international trade negotiations binding of rates is considered to be a meaningful concession in so far as it provides a measure of stability in protective levels. Whilst it is not possible to quantify benefits accruing from such concessions it is considered that Australia’s contribution in the Tropical Products Negotiations was a significant one, based on items in which developing countries had expressed interest.

Refugees (Question No. 368)

Mr Chipp:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs the following question, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

  1. How many refugees from (a) Cyprus, (b) Lebanon, (c) other non-Asian countries and (d) Indo-China has the Government accommodated since 1 3 December 1975.
  2. Can he say how many refugees from Indo-China the Governments of (a) the United States of America, (b) France, (c) Canada, (d) Belgium, (e) Austria, (f) Britain, (g) West Germany and (h) Switzerland have accommodated respectively.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

Persons in many different situations have been called refugees. These have included displaced and stateless persons, those seeking political asylum, defectors, members of oppressed minorities and victims of natural disasters.

In 1951 the United Nations adopted a Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This included a definition of a refugee as ‘any person who, owing to well-founded fear, of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political group, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it’.

Following are details of refugees who arrived in Australia since 13 December 1975:

Vietnamese- 1035

Cambodians- 285

Laotians- 46 1

Chileans-39

Statistics are not available for the number of refugees received from other countries but it is estimated that since 1 3 December 1975, arrivals would be approximately 400. It should also be noted that other Chilean arrivals include some refugees who have been classified for statistical purposes under normal migration criteria.

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has advised that displaced persons from Cyprus and Lebanon are not regarded as refugees according to the Convention definition.

Australia has, however, regarded Cypriots who were displaced by events in their country as ‘quasi-refugees’ and, during 1976 and 1977 has accepted an estimated 1500 under these special arrangements.

The Government has also adopted special measures involving the approval, under relaxed criteria, of Lebanese migrants nominated by close relaves in Australia. It is estimated that some 10 000 have arrived under this program since December 1975.

  1. The following information is derived from a range of sources. It is mainly from authorities in the countries concerned. The figures should be regarded as estimates only and may relate to differing definitions of ‘refugee’.

Statistics from Austria and West Germany are not available.

Palm Oil: Production Statistics (Question No. 413)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

Will he arrange for future issues of Production Summary No. 41, vegetable oils, margarine and other edible processed fats, to include a separate column for palm oil: if not. why not.

Mr Lynch:
LP

– The following answer has been provided to the honourable member’s question:

Because 2 enterprises are responsible for most of the output of palm oil, ABS practice is not to publish an identifiable figure for that commodity as publication could contravene the confidentiality provisions of the Census and Statistics Act. The figure is included in total output of vegetable oils. The situation will be kept under review, and separate figures will be published if and when possible.

Public Service: Appointments (Question No. 431)

Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Chairman of the Public Service Board prepare and furnish to him a written report nominating persons considered suitable for appointment as Secretary to the Department of Productivity.
  2. If so, did the report contain the Chairman’s name as a person considered suitable for the appointment.
Mr Macphee:
LP

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

  1. and (2) See the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 423 (House of Representatives Hansard. 24 May 1977, page 1778).

Consumer Price Index: Government Taxes and Charges (Question No. 462)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1977:

  1. What were the index figures each quarter since 1966-67 for the Consumer Price Index excluding government taxes and charges and Medibank effects.
  2. Using 1966-67 as a base, what has been the quarterly change since then in all government taxes and charges which are included in the CPI.
  3. 3 ) What percentages of the regimen used for constructing the December quarter CPI is made up of government taxes and charges.
Mr Lynch:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ). ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) The Consumer Price Index is comised of a large number of individual items classified into sub-groups of comparable items. Given the construction of the index it is possible, therefore, for the Statistician to publish movements in prices of particular groupings of items. Quarterly price movements are in fact published for ‘All Groups, excluding hospital and medical services’.

However changes in major Commonwealth taxes and charges can affect many sub-groups in the Index. The Statistician does not publish an estimate of such effects.

In Statement No. 2 attached to the 1976-77 Budget Speech and in my Press release No. 20 of 22 February 1977 estimates were provided of movements in the index, excluding the effects both of changes in health insurance arrangements and changes in major Commonwealth taxes and charges, for half-yearly periods since the end of 1 973.

Income Tax: Delays in Assessments (Question No. 499)

Mr Fitzpatrick:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Are income tax assessments subject to extraordinary delays in New South Wales.
  2. If so, are these delays the result of staff reductions and /or shortages.
  3. Are delays in providing assessments or clearances for tax to the date of death causing hardship to many people who are beneficiaries of deceased estates being handled by the Broken Hill Branch of the Public Trusts Office of New South Wales.
  4. If so, will he inquire into the delays with a view to expediting assessments, especially those involving deceased estates.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. No. During the first 10 months of the year 1976-77, the Taxation Offices in New South Wales issued approximately 40 000 more income tax assessments than they issued during the corresponding period in 1975-76.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Some delays have occurred in cases involving the beneficiaries of deceased estates being handled by the Broken Hill Branch of the Public Trustee’s Office.
  4. Steps have been taken to process all outstanding cases. Arrangements have been made to inform the Public Trustee’s Office in Broken Hill of the requirements of the Taxation Office and to provide a line of communication of benefit to both organisations.

National Income: Profit Share (Question No. 538)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 March 1977:

  1. I ) What has been the level of profits, the level of national income and the proportion of the former in the latter (a) in each year since 1965-66 and (b) in each quarter since 1970-71.

    1. What definitions of the profit share and of national income are used in these calculations.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As an answer to the first part of the honourable member’s question, the following tables set out the gross operating surplus of companies, gross non-farm product at factor cost and their ratio ( the profit share ) ( A ) for each year since 1 965-66 and ( B) for each quarter since 1 970-7 1 .
  1. 2 ) The profit share for this purpose is taken to be the ratio of the gross operating surplus of companies to gross nonfarming product at factor cost. Gross non-farm product at factor cost has been used instead of national income since quanerly series are not published for the latter concept and since the profit share is less volatile when defined in terms of the non-farm aggregates. The Statistician derives national income from gross domestic product by subtracting depreciation allowances and net income payments overseas.

Health Benefits Organisations (Question No. 563)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 March 1 977:

When did his Department write to all registered health benefits organisations for the information he needs to answer question No. 1204. which I asked upon notice on 23 September 1976 (Hansard. 1 December 1976. page 3085), and questions Nos 1730 and 245 which I asked upon notice on 3 December 1976 and again on 9 March 1977 (Hansard, 22 March 1977, page 47 1).

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The Divisional Offices of my Department wrote to each registered organisation operating in their respective State on the dates shown hereunder:

New South Wales-29 April 1977

Victoria-20 April 1977

Queensland-2 1 April 1977

South Australia- 1 9 April 1977

Western Australia-21 April 1977

Tasmania- 20 April 1977

There was a delay in asking for the information and this is regretted.

  1. The information sought as mentioned above as a consequence of question No. 1204 has now been received and is as follows:

House of Representatives Question No. 1204 Health Insurance Organisations

  1. 1 ) ( a) Blue Cross Organisations ( five in number)

Blue Cross Organisations with one exception, make no provision for direct elected contributor representation on the directorates of the organisations. These organisations are:

The Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia- N.S.W.

The Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia Incorporated

Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited- N.S.W., Qld,Tas.

The Mutual Hospital Association Limited, S.A.

The Articles of Association of The Hospital Benefits Association Ltd (Victoria) provide to the effect that all members of the company must be and must have been contributors for at least three years prior to becoming a member of the Association. Of the 24 members, 8 are elected by the contributors at a public meeting of contributors.

From the 24 members, 1 1 are drawn each year to form a Board of Directors. The Board must include 4 of the members elected by the contributors.

  1. b ) Friendly Society Organisations

Control of the registered health benefit funds conducted by Friendly Societies in determined by the Friendly Society rules and the provisions of the several State Friendly Societies Acts. In general contributors to those funds do not per se have any say in the control of the Friendly Societies affairs including administration of health funds. Control is vested in lodge membership. Members of lodges elect their office bearers and their delegates to higher bodies which in turn elect their directorate. Contributors to such funds are not required to be members of the Society.

  1. Other ‘Open’ Membership Organisations

The rules of the following other ‘open’ membership organisations make no provision for direct elected contributor representation:

Health Insurance Commission (Medibank Private)- all States

Cessnock District Hospital Contribution Fund-N.S.W. (Hospital Fund only)

Goldfields Medical Fund (Incorporated)- W.A.

TheKurri Kurri Maitland Hospital Contribution FundN.S.W. (Hospital Fund only)

N.I.B Health Funds Limited-N.S.W.

The Store Hospital and Medical Fund-N.S.W.

Tasmanian Government Insurance Office Medical Benefits Plan/Tasmanian Government Insurance Office Hospital Benefits Plan

Western District Medical Benefits Fund-N.S.W. (Medical Fund only)

The Wollongong Hospital and Medical Benefits Contributions Fund

The following other ‘open’ membership organisations make provision for elected contributor representation as under

Broken Hill and District Hospital Contributions FundN.S.W. (Hospital Fund only)

Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association Limited- Vic.

Committee of Management comprises 12 members- 8 elected by contributors, 3 appointed by the Geelong Hospital and 1 appointed by the Federated Pharmacy Guild.

Government Employees’ Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund Incorporated- W.A.

The Hunter Medical Benefit Fund Limited-N.S.W. Contributors must be members of all funds conducted by the organisation before being eligible to vote in elections. That is, the medical and hospital funds conducted under the National Health Act and the Pharmaceutical Fund which is conducted outside the provisions of the National Health Act.

Latrobe Valley Hospitals and Health Services Association- Vic.

Before a contributor is entitled to vote in or contest elections of directors, he must first be an Association member. Any person, whether or not a medical or hospital fund contributor may become an Association member by paying an annual subscription of $2.00.

The Mildura District Hospital & Medical Fund- Vic.

Queenstown Medical Union Ancillary Medical Benefits Fund/Queenstown Medical Union Hospital Benefits Fund- Tas.

Rosebery Hospital & Medical Benefits Society- Tas. (Medical Fund only)

St Luke’s Medical and Hospital Benefits Association- Tas.

Yallourn Medical and Hospital Society- Vic.

  1. Restricted Membership Organisations

The following restricted membership organisations (industrial funds) make no provision for election by contributors of directorates:

Army Health Benefits Society- all States

Commonwealth Bank Health Society- all States

New South Wales Teachers’ Federation Health Society- N.S.W.

Naval Health Benefits Society-all States

Reserve Bank Health Society-all States

The following restricted membership organisations provide for election of directors by contributors:

The Advertiser Provident Society- S.A. (Hospital Fund only)

A.M.A. (N.S.W.) Health Fund Limited-N.S.W. (commenced operations January 1977)

Associated Pulp and Paper Makers’ Council Medical Benefits Fund/Assiciated Pulp and Paper Makers’ Council Hospital Benefits Fund-Vic, Qld and Tas. The Funds are governed by a Council of 25 members- 2 1 elected by contributors and 4 appointed by the Company

Commonwealth Public Service (Qld) Credit Union

Health Benefits Society- Qld (commenced operations

January 1977)

Cheetham Hospital Benefits Fund- Vic

Coats Patons Employees’ Mutual Benefit Society and Hospital and Medical Benefit Association-N.S.W., Vic, Qld and Tas.

The Commercial Banking Company Health Society- all States

Contributors are entitled to vote for contributors’ representatives only. The Committee comprises 7 members three of whom are contributors ‘ representatives

Electrolytic Zinc Employees’ Medical Union/Electrolytic Zinc Employees’ Hospital Fund-all States

The Funds are managed by 21 members- 14 elected annually by all employees (contributors) and 7 appointed by the Company

The Fire Service Health Fund-S.A.

Local Government Employees’ Medical and Hospital Club-N.S.W.

The Lysaght Hospital & Medical Club-all States

M.I.M. Employees Health Society- Qld (commenced operations February 1977)

The Committee of Management comprises four members elected by contributors and two members appointed by the Company

N.S.W. Railway & Transport Employees’ Hospital Fund-N.S.W

The Phoenix Welfare Association Limited- all States

S.A. Police Department Employees’ Hospital Fund-S.A. (Hospital Fund only)

S.A. Public Service Health Benefits Fund (S.A.)*

The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ Hospital Fund-N.S.W. (Hospital Fund only)

Queensland Teachers’ Union Health Society- Qld *Hospital Fund only.

  1. and (3) Contested elections in respect of which contributors had voting rights held in 1976 and the percentage of contributors which voted at these elections as advised by the organisations were:

    1. Blue Cross Organisations

The Hospital Benefits Association Ltd (Vic.)- 0.066 per cent

  1. Other ‘Open’ Membership Organisations (excluding Friendly Societies)

The Yallourn Medical and Hospital Society (Vic.)-2.00 percent

Rosebery Hospital & Medical Benefits Society (Tas.)approximately 50.00 per cent

  1. Restricted Membership Organisations

Associated Pulp and Paper Makers’ Council Medical Benefits Fund/Associated Pulp and Paper Makers’ Council Hospital Benefits Fund (Vic, Qld and Tas.)almost 100 percent

Coats Patons Employees’ Mutual Benefit Society and Hospital and Medical Benefit Association (N.S.W., Vic, Qld and Tas.)- estimated at between 70 per cent to 95 percent

Electrolytic Zinc Employees’ Medical Union/Electrolytic Zinc Employees’ Hospital Fund (all States)- approx 50.00 per cent

S.A. Public Service Health Benefits Fund (S.A.)-0.8 per cent

Repatriation Pensioners: Distribution by Electoral Division (Question No. 567)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs upon notice, on 30 March 1977:

How many persons are receiving repatriation pensions in each electoral division.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

The following figures are based on postcode districts, most of which are within the various electoral divisions. However, where an overlap of postcodes and electoral divisions occurs, an estimate of the relative numbers within each electoral boundary has been made.

Migrants: Lodgment of Income Tax Returns (Question No. 573)

Mr Neil:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to public concern that some new migrants do not fill out income tax returns.
  2. If so, does the Taxation Department liaise with the Immigration Department to ensure that these persons are traced.
  3. How many migrants, who arrived within the last 10 years, are estimated not to have paid tax since arrival.
  4. What is the estimated loss to revenue.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. No. Each year, many people fail to furnish their income tax returns by the due date and those who do not comply with final notices are prosecuted in the courts. New migrants are not subject to special attention.
  2. The Taxation Office has an on-going program for the detection of persons who fail to lodge their returns. This activity is conducted on a broad front and is not directed at any particular segment of the community.
  3. and (4) This information is not available.

Citizen Band Radio (Question No. 584)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 9 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Have investigations by his Department into the illegal use of Citizen Band radio revealed evidence that the medium is being used by some criminal elements to assist their operations.
  2. If so, has evidence been forthcoming that groups such as drug pushers, SP bookmakers, prostitution rings, and thieves are involved, and has action been taken by his Department to advise State police forces of these activities.
  3. If so, what State police forces have responded to this advice, and what arrest have been forthcoming.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, in both respects.
  3. It is understood that the police forces in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia have responded to the advice given. It is not known whether any of the arrests which have been made can be claimed to result solely from departmental advice regarding illegal radio transmissions.

Ethnic Groups: Representation in Victorian Municipalities (Question No. 715)

Mr Bryant:
WILLS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

  1. How many persons of each of the 10 largest ethnic groups are estimated or known to reside in the Victorian municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick.
  2. What were the corresponding estimates or known figures for 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965 and 1970.
  3. Is the definition of the persons referred to in parts ( 1 ) and (2) that they were born outside Australia; if not, on what basis is the classification made.
  4. Does the classification include Australian-born children of persons born outside Australia.
  5. 5 ) In respect of the answer to part ( 1 ), what percentage of the persons in each group is estimated or known to have taken Australian citizenship.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. The most recent information available is from the 1971 Census. On the basis of 1971 Census tabulations on birthplace, the 10 largest ethnic groups in the municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick were as follows in 1971:

(2)Tabulations from the 1954, 1961 and 1966 censuses show the 10 largest ethnic groups for the municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick to have been:

  1. 3 ) The definition of the persons referred to in all parts of this answer is on the basis that they were born outside Australia.
  2. The classification does not include Australian-born children of persons born outside Australia.
  3. Reliable estimates cannot be made of the numbers in each of the groups who have acquired Australian citizenship. However, 1971 census data show for the following groups the percentages who at that time had British nationality, which includes those with Australian citizenship.

Nationalisation (Question No. 716)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many residents of the Victorian municipalities of Broadmeadows. Coburg and Brunswick became Australian citizens in each year since1945.
  2. Were all these new citizens naturalised at their respective town hall.
  3. If not. what proportion received their citizenship at their respective town hall in each year since 1 945.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are:

  1. ) Statistics are not maintained by place of residence for persons granted Australian citizenship. From January 1949 (when Australian citizenship was introduced) to 1954. conferment of Australian citizenship in the Melbourne metropolitan area took place as a general rule in the Melbourne Court of Petty Sessions. Some private conferment ceremonies were arranged in special cases- such as those involving physically handicapped persons. Prior to 1949 persons naturalised as British subjects were not required to attend conferment ceremonies, but had their certificates of naturalisation posted to them. The table below shows the numbers of persons granted citizenship in the Coburg Town Hall since 1954 and the Broadmeadows and Brunswick Town Halls since 1962. Figures for the Broadmeadows and Brunswick Town Halls for the years 1954 to 1961 inclusive are not available. In recent years many residents of the municipalities mentioned have had Australian citizenship conferred at non public ceremonies conducted by delegated officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.
  1. 2 ) and ( 3 ) See answer to (1 ).

National Income: Profit Share (Question No. 749)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 April 1977:

What is the ‘ normal ‘ share of profits in Australian national income.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

In a related question (Question 538). the honourable member asked how the ‘profit share’ is defined and how the profit share has moved since 1965-66. I answer his present question in terms of the same concept of profit share as was used in that reply.

As can be observed in the data provided in reply to Question 538. the profit share usually fluctuates with the level of economic activity. My answer to Question 538 provides data to work out what is an historically normal share of profits. If, for example, the ‘normal’ share of profits is taken to be the average observed over the course of the business cycle, then on the basis of experience over the period 1959-60 to 1 972-73, which covers several complete cycles, then the’normal ‘ profit share is about17j per cent.

During the recession presided over by the former Labor Government the share of profits slumped well below the average recorded between 1959-60 and 1972-73: in the December quarter of 1 975. for example, it was 1 2.8 per cent. There has been a very encouraging, although partial recovery in the profit share under the economic policies of the present Government.

Service Pensions: Provision of ‘Reply Paid’ Envelopes (Question No. 779)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs the following question, upon notice, on 3 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the special circumstances which determine whether a ‘reply paid’ envelope is provided to Service pensioners and applicants for Service pension.
  2. 2 ) What is the estimated saving to Consolidated Revenue in discontinuing the previous practice of providing a ‘reply paid ‘ envelope to Service pensioners and applicants for Service pension.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. ) The special circumstances are:

    1. a ) where it is essential that the Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs receives a reply to correspondence initiated: and
    2. where it is considered that hardship would be involved to an applicant or pensioner if a preid envelope were not provided.
  2. The estimated saving to consolidated revenue is $20,000 per annum.

Non-official Post Offices (Question No. 784)

Mr Cadman:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications upon notice, on 2 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Since the establishment of the Australian Postal Commission how many unofficial post offices (a) have closed and ( b ) have been opened.
  2. Do these figures represent -a change in the pattern existing prior to the establishment of the Commission.
Mr E L ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Since the establishment of the Australian Postal Commission on 1 July 1 975 and to the end of March 1977

    1. a ) 322 non-official post offices have been closed, including seven converted from non-official to official status, and
    2. b ) 21 have been opened, including three converted from official to non-official status.
  2. 2 ) The present policy concerning the opening and closing of non-official post offices is unchanged from that which existed prior to the establishment of the Australian Postal Commission. The policy aims at progressive action to rationalise the provision of postal services, without detracting from the existing standards of service and, in many cases, with an improvement to the standard of delivery of mail.

Northern Territory: Long Term Financial Arrangements (Question No. 808)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Which departments are members of the interdepartmental committee set up to advise on the long-term financial arrangements for the Northern Territory.
  2. What are its terms of reference.
  3. When was it established.
  4. 4 ) When is it expected or required to report.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) No Interdepartmental Committee has been established to advise solely on the long term financial arrangements for the Northern Territory. In the context of the decision by the Government that all State-type functions in the Northern Territory would be transferred to the Legislative Assembly over a 3 to 4 year period and Interdepartmental Committee was established on 21 September 1976 to expose all the issues requiring decision including future financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly (and the future State of the Northern Territory). The membership of that Interdepartmental Committee comprises the Departments of the Northern Territory, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury, and Finance, Attorney-General’s Department and the Public Service Board. The Committee is required to submit proposals in the context of the 1977-78 Budget covering future financial relations between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory.
  2. (3) and (4) See reply to(l).

Mr Bruce Gyngell: Pecuniary Interests (Question No. 812)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

Who advised him that none of the pecuniary interests in Warooka Pty Ltd brought the appointment of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal within the requirement set forth in section 9 of the Broadcasting and Televison Aci 1942 (Hansard, 24 March 1977, page 634 and Senate Hansard, 27 April 1977, page 1042).

Mr E L ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

The Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department in consultation with the Attorney-General and the SolicitorGeneral.

Mr Bruce Gyngell: Association with American Broadcasting Company and Television Corporation Ltd (Question No. 813)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 May 1977:

On what date and by what means did the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (a) terminate his association with the production of a feature film involving the American Broadcasting Company, (b) terminate his consultancy agreement with Television Corporation Limited and (c) enter into the arrangement for Television Corporation Limited to lend him a Jaguar motor car (Senate Hansard. 27 April 1977, pages 1042 and 1043).

Mr E L ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 21 December 1976.
  2. 21 December 1976.
  3. 30 December 1975.

South Vietnamese Refugees (Question No. 819)

Mr Abel:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs the following question, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Can he say how many refugees from South Vietnam were accepted as immigrants by (a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) the United States of America and (d) any other country since April 1975.
  2. What has been (a) total value and (b) form of foreign aid to Vietnam from (i) Australia, (ii) Canada, (iii) United States of America and (iv) any other country which has accepted South Vietnamese refugees and given aid since April 1975, and (c) what percentages of their total foreign budgets did their individual contributions to Vietnam represent.
  3. What has been (a) total value of foreign aid to Vietnam, (b) form of foreign aid to Vietnam and (c) percentage total of the foreign aid budget since April 1975, for each of the countries not mentioned above which participated in the Vietnam conflict with armed servicemen.
  4. For each country that has accepted South Vietnamese refugees, what total number and percentages of its emigrants have been from South Vietnam since April 1975.
  5. What plans does the Government have for relocating South Vietnamese emigrants in Australia in the future.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

– I refer the honourable member to my answer to his question on notice No. 615.

Pharmaceutical Benefits: Milk Substitutes (Question No. 826)

Mr Neil:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 May 1977:

  1. Was the age limit for the prescribing of milk substitutes lifted from 4 years to 6 years in 1973.
  2. If so, on what evidence was the action based.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The increase in the age limit was in accordance with a recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, whose membership has changed since then. At that time the Committee was not providing the reasons for its recommendations.

Interpreting and Translating Services (Question No. 870)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 May 1 977:

  1. 1) On what dates did he write to the Premrs concerning the establishment of a working party in each State, sponsored jointly by the Federal and State Governments, to examine means of co-ordinating language services.
  2. On what date did each Premier reply.
  3. On what dates was a working party established in each Territory to examine means of co-ordinating language services.
  4. Which departments have located and identified positions where at least 10 per cent of the working time of the occupant is spent dealing with clients in a language other than English.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Upon receipt of the report of the inter-departmental working party on interpreters and translators the Prime Minister wrote on 2 1 February 1977 to all State Premiers asking them to examine the report and to forward any comments they may have on the best way of meeting the needs of the community for interpreter/translator services. No reference was made to any particular recommendations of the working party.
  2. Premiers of the following States have submitted substantive replies on the dates indicated:

Western Australia- 7 April

Tasmania- 28 April

South Australia-6 May

Queensland- 10 May

Victoria- 26 May

  1. and (4) The Government will give further consideration to the recommendations in the Report, including these proposals when the views of the Premiers are available.

Telephone Services: Campbelltown (Question No. 880)

Mr Baume:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 24 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many public telephones are currently in service within that part of the City of Campbelltown within the borders of the electoral division of Macarthur (a) as an absolute number and (b) as a proportion of the population.
  2. What is the comparable proportion for the metropolitan area of Sydney as a whole.
  3. How many public telephones are being installed in Campbelltownduring the 1976-77 financial year, and what effect will this have on the ratio of telephones to expected population at the end of 1976-77.
  4. What is the ratio of private subscriber telephones in dwellings to the population in this area compared to the ratio of private subscriber telephones in dwellings for the total of the Sydney metropolitan area.
Mr E L ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. As at June 1976 there were 60 public telephones installed in the City of Campbelltown and this represented a percentage of 0. 1 8 of public telephones as to population.
  2. ) This compares with a percentage of 0.26 of public telephones as to population in the Sydney Metropolitan area.
  3. During the 1976-77 financial year an additional11 public telephones will be installed in the Campbelltown area and this will increase to 0.19 the percentage of public telephones as to the projected population at June 1977.
  4. As at June 1976 17.31 per cent of the population of Campbelltown had private telephone services and this compared with the Sydney Metropolitan area where 25 per cent of the population had private services.

Immigration: Sponsorship of Aged and Dependent Parents (Question No. 891)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

What inquiries are carried out by his Department to ensure that sponsors signing maintenance guarantees on behalf of aged dependent parents prior to entry to Australia are in a position to meet the obligations covered by the guarantees.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

Since there is a qualifying period for age benefits it is the practice of my Depanment to obtain maintenance guarantees from sponsors in Australia seeking to nominate the aged and dependent parents for migrant entry to Australia.

My Depanment assesses whether, on the basis of information supplied by the sponsors, they are capable of honouring their maintenance guarantees. Guarantees are not accepted from persons where their stated incomes do not appear adequate to meet the guarantees. In some instances it is necessary to conduct futher inquiries to determine whether the information supplied by persons seeking to sponsor their aged and dependent parents would enable the maintenance guarantees to be honoured. The nature and extent of the inquiries would vary according to the particular circumstances.

Deportation: Responsibility of Ministers (Question No. 902)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did Mr Justice Gibbs in the case of Salemi v Minister for Immigration hold that the Immigration Act did not require the Minister to act in accordance with the rules of natural justice.
  2. If so, does he enjoy this privilege; if not, will he amend the Act accordingly.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr Justice Gibbs held the view that the Minister is not bound to alford a hearing to a prohibited immigrant before ordering his deportation under section 18 of the Migration Act.
  2. No amendment to section 18 of the Migration Act is contemplated.

Repatriation Pensioners: Appointment of Trustees (Question No. 908)

Mr Jull:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. What are the guidelines set down by the Department to enable private persons to be warrantees for persons receiving pensions from the Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs.
  2. Are the credentials of the warrantees checked by the Depanment prior to that right being given.
  3. How often are the warrantees reviewed by the Depanment.
  4. For how many persons receiving Veterans’ Affairs pensions do Dr Noel Hall and Mrs Noel Hall of 129 Windemere Road, Ascot, Queensland, act as warrantees.
  5. For how many persons receiving Veterans’ Affairs pensions does Mr Bashir Mohammed Deen of 246 Randall Road, Wynnum West, Queensland, act as warrantee.
  6. When was the last review undertaken by the Department on the number of pensions falling under the jurisdiction of the persons referred to in parts (4) and (5).
  7. 7 ) On what basis do these persons claim the right to act as warrantees.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

The term warrantee is not used in relation to payment of repatriation pensions. Repatriation legislation provides for trustees to receive payments on behalf of pensioners.

1 ) A trustee may be appointed for a pensioner at the pensioner’s request, less there is evidence indicating that the proposed trustee is unsuitable. A trustee may be appointed without a pensioner’s consent if the pensioner is considered by the Repatriation Commission to be so infirm, improvident, or aged as to make trusteeship desirable.

No, unless there is evidence to suggest that the proposed trustee is not a suitable person to administer the pension in the interests of the pensioner.

Trustees are not ‘reviewed’ unless evidence of unsuitability becomes available or the pensioner concerned requests that the trusteeship be terminated.

Dr Noel Hall is trustee for one repatriation pensioner. Mrs Hall is not a trustee for any repatriation pensioners. Dr Hall is the pensioner’s local medical officer.

Mr Deen is not a trustee for any repatriation pensioners.

No such review has been undertaken. The trusteeship commenced on 19 May 1977.

A trustee does not claim a right to trusteeship and has no such right. His trusteeship continues at the discretion of the Repatration Commission, but usually continues indefinitely as long as the pensioner concerned is satisfied with the arrangements.

Defence Service Homes: Purchase, Sale and Development of Land (Question No. 944)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) I las any land in addition to that listed in answer to my question No. 1401, (Han sard, 7 December 1976, page 3454) been purchased for Defence Service Homes; if so, what was the purchase price.
  2. Has any land listed in that answer since been sold or developed; if so, (a) what land was sold, what was the sale price and to whom was it sold and ( b ) which areas have been developed and what was the cost per block of developed land.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. (a) A parcel of 39 hectares of undeveloped land at Kingston, Tasmania, has been sold for $170,000 to Estates Development Pty Ltd, Hobart. Two hundred and seventy developed individual blocks in various estates have been sold. Except for a small number not required by eligible persons, these were sold to eligible persons for prices ranging from $3,400 to $10,300.

    1. The Defence Service Homes Corporation has developed 8.2 hectares at Adamstown, New South Wales, with an average cost of $10,900 per block and 18.4 hectares at Runcorn, Queensland, with an average cost of $7,800 per block.

Compensation in respect of Death of Mr P. F. McNamara (Question No. 960)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did he write to me on 25 May 1977 concerning Paul Frederick McNamara, formerly Associate Director in the New South Wales region of the Department of Construction, who died in the United Kingdom on 24 April 1977 and whose death certificate stated the cause of death to be aplastic anaemia of unknown aetiology.
  2. What were the precise grounds of Mr McNamara ‘s claim on 26 January 1977 for compensation arising out of or in the course of employment in respect of aplastic anaemia.
  3. What are the precise details of the grounds of the claim for compensation lodged on 3 May 1977 by Mr McNamara ‘s widow.
  4. What are the precise details of the work he performed in respect of which he and his widow have made a claim for compensation.
Mr McLeay:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. , (3) and (4) The claims for compensation are at present under consideration in the Department of Construction prior to their submission to the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation. It is not considered appropriate to publish details of statements made to the Depanment by Mr or Mrs McNamara in this matter.

Naturalisation (Question No. 978)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:

What is the present average delay in each State in the processing of applications for Australian citizenship.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

The periods mentioned above represent the processing time from date of receipt of application to date of approval.

Overseas Travel by Departmental Staff (Question No. 1003)

Mr Morris:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 June 1977:

  1. I ) What is the name and classification of each officer of his Department who travelled overseas, or is scheduled to travel overseas, during the periods (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 30 June 1976 and (b) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 on duties associated with (i) overseas visits by him, (ii) overseas visits by any other Ministers and (iii) overseas visits for any other purpose.

    1. 2 ) What charges were made against his Department ‘s estimates in respect of each of those officers under the categories listed in pan ( 1 ) by way of (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation and (c) other costs.
    2. What amounts were recovered or are to be recovered from other departments in respect of those officers, and in respect of what activities by those officers on behalf of other departments were the amounts recovered or are expected to be recovered.
    3. Were funds set aside in the Department’s estimates in each of the relevant periods for expenditure of this nature; if so, what were the amounts provided and what were the division and subdivision numbers.
    4. If funds were not set aside in the Department’s estimates, from what source were the expenditures paid, showing division and subdivision numbers.
    5. From whom were the requests for duties to be carried out on behalf of other departments received, and when.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) to (6) The information is not maintained in the form sought by the honourable member. To obtain it would require considerable effort and man hours, which I am not prepared to authorise.

If the honourable member wishes to have information in respect of some specific issue, however, I shall examine his request to see if this can be provided.

Repatriation Pensioners: Medical and Hospital Entitlements (Question No. 588)

Mr Sullivan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 1 9 April 1977:

Are war pensioners, under the category of 100 per cent general rate, entitled to (a) all medical and hospital treatment under repatriation provisions, (b) the care of either their local medical officer or a specialist who has agreed to treat repatriation patients, (c) admission to intermediate or private accommodation at a country public hospital, if deemed desirable and available for occupancy, and (d) full exemption from payment of the Medibank levy.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

Disability (war) pensioners in receipt of the 100 per cent General Rate pension and above (i.e. Intermediate Rate and Special (T. & P. I.) Rate) are eligible for all the matters specified in (a), (b) and (d). If they have dependants they must pay half of the Medibank levy, unless the dependants qualify for exemption in their own right

With regard to (c), if such patients require admission to a country public hospital, they are admitted as hospital services patients under Medibank arrangements. However, when admission under these arrangements precludes continuing access by the local medical officer, or specialist already involved in the treatment, as is often the case, and such treatment would be prejudiced by that denial of access, approval may be granted to admit a pensioner as a private patient in a snared room.

In regard to disability pensioners receiving less than the 1 00 per cent rate the answer is as follows:

and (b) Disability pensioners in receipt of less than the 100 per cent rate, unless they are Boer or First War veterans or former prisoners-of-war, or qualify for ‘fringe benefits’ as Service pensioners, are entitled to treatment for their accepted service-related disabilities only. The extent of treatment available for these disabilities embraces all medical and hospital care, and includes the care of local medical officers or specialists who have agreed to treat repatriation patients.

The position in regard to this group as it relates to treatment for their accepted service-related disabilities is the same as outlined in the second paragraph above.

Disability pensioners receiving less than the 100 per cent rate are not exempt from the Medibank levy.

Repatriation Pensioners: Medical and Hospital Entitlements (Question No. 589)

Mr Sullivan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. Are there exceptions under repatriation provisions which refer to conditions for which treatment is available under third party and workers’ compensation or where war pensioners are entitled to recover or receive the cost of medical treatment by way of damages or compensation from another person.
  2. Is it a fact that in the event of an injury for which no other party was liable, and any liability was their own, they would receive treatment under repatriation provisions.
  3. Is it also a fact that they do not need any private health insurance cover and that, if they are satisfied with repatriation provisions, they (a) would not be liable to a means test at a public hospital which would otherwise mean that they would be personally liable for whole or partial payment of medical treatment and (b) would not have to make a claim to the nominal defendant.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Under the provisions of Repatriation Regulation 70a, where medical treatment is provided by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the person either recovers or receives, or the Repatriation Commission notifies the person that he is entitled to recover or receive, damages or compensation covering the cost of the treatment, payment is to be made for the cost of that medical treatment.
  2. Where a veteran sustains an injury for which no other party, including the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, is liable, he could receive treatment at departmental expense if he qualifies on one of the following grounds: he is in receipt of a disability pension at the 1 00 per cent rate or above; he is a former prisoner-of-war; he is a veteran of the Boer War or the 1 9 1 4- 1 8 War; or he is a service pensioner whose income (other than service pension) is below the level applicable to him under section 1 23ab of the Repatriation Act.

A war widow and her dependent children (if any) would also be entitled to receive treatment.

  1. (a) See answer to Question No. 588.

    1. See answer to (I) above. If a person who receives medical treatment is entitled to recover treatment costs from the nominal defendant, then he is liable to pay the cost of his treatment.

Darwin: Transport of School Children (Question No. 608)

Mr Calder:

asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) Was Robert E. Lee the lowest tenderer for all 1 7 runs for the transport of school children in the Darwin area in respect of tender TB 300 1/76.
  2. ) If so, why were 3 runs only let to him and 8 to Matilda Tours, which he manages, at a tender price higher than that of O’Hara ‘s Roadlines Pty Ltd.
  3. Is it a fact that O’Hara’s Roadlines Pty Ltd tendered lower prices than the successful tenderers for Runs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17.
  4. Why was Robert E. Lee awarded any runs when he does not own any buses.
  5. What are the registered numbers and carrying capacities of the buses described in Annexure D to the Tender Schedule submitted by (a) Robert E. Lee and (b) Matilda Tours.
  6. Did Robert E. Lee and Matilda Tours tender with the same buses.
  7. What was the total number of vehicles quoted by (a) Robert E. Lee and (b) Matilda Tours in respect of question 1 of Annexure C to the Tender Schedule.
  8. What vehicles were quoted by (a) Robert E. Lee and (b) Matilda Tours as being available from outside sources as per question 2 on Annexure C to the Tender Schedule.
  9. Did Robert E. Lee and Matilda Tours state that their buses were 62 passenger vehicles.
  10. 10) Was O’Hara’s Roadlines Pty Ltd told that, although its tender prices were lower than the successful tenderers for the majority of runs, its tenders were not successful because their bus capacities were not 62 passenger and was the Darwin Bus and Motor Service told that, although its bus capacities were correct at 62 passengers, its tenders were unsuccessful because its prices were too high; if so, can these 2 statements be reconciled.
  11. Were any particular bus capacities stipulated by the Tender Board up until 1974 when the requirement became 60 passengers.
  12. Why was the requirement changed to 62 passengers in respect of tender TB 300 1 /76.
  13. 1 3 ) Is there any documentation proving that the 62 passenger capacity was necessary.
  14. 14) Has the Transport Manager received complaints of (a) buses running late, (b) children being carried in unsafe buses, (c) Toyota 18 passenger Coasters being used and (d) buses being used for tourist work leaving school runs unserviced; if so, has the Manager taken action in respect of these complaints; if not, why not.
  15. Why was a Government bus provided to carry out the Matilda Tours Darwin High School run on 11 March 1 977 while its bus was being used to pick up tourists from the Darwin Airport.
  16. Were contracts let in 1972 to several tenderers who did not have any buses, and was Mrs O’Hara advised when she queried this action that it was to create healthy competition; if so, is it now the intention to kill that competition.
  17. Did Mr W. J. Hull inform Mrs O’Hara in January 1977 that Matilda Tours would have buses of the correct capacity by the commencement of the school year; if so, does this imply that the Tender Board was aware that Matilda Tours did not have them then.
  18. 18) If the Tender Board inquired of Matilda Tours about the availability of buses of the correct capacity, did it inquire also of O’Hara’s Roadlines Pty Ltd; if not, why not.
  19. Was it more important that the Tender Board should have inquired of O’Hara’s Roadlines Pty Ltd which had submitted lower tender prices.
  20. Have tenders now been called for 3 more school runs; if so, (a) is the same Tender Board to award the contracts, (b) how can O’Hara’s Roadlines Pty Ltd find out the new rules which seem to be prevailing and (c) what is meant by approximately 60 passengers’.
  21. Who planned the additional runs.
  22. Were they worked out by someone with little knowledge of transport.
  23. Why are the tenders being called only for the 1977 school year.
  24. Has his attention been drawn to reports that some smart contractors persuade the right public servants to prepare tender requirements to suit their own particular services, irrespective of the requirements of the Government; if so, is there any substance in the reports.
  25. When can Mrs O’Hara expect a reply to her letter to him on 9 February 1977.
  26. Is it normal practice to alter runs to suit the requirements of the school year, once the runs have settled down; if so, have Runs1 to 17 been altered.
  27. What are the exact routes being used in respect of Runs 1,3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Robert E. Lee tendered the lowest prices for each of the 17 runs.
  2. Robert E. Lee only nominated 3 buses with back up buses to be provided by Matilda Tours. He was awarded three runs. Mrs O’Hara only nominated 4 of her 9 buses as being of the capacity specified in the tender documents. She received four runs as she was the next lowest tenderer after Robert E. Lee for these runs. Matilda Tours weroutright lowest on three runs and were next lowest tenderer to Mrs O’Hara on 5 runs on which Mrs O’Hara’s tender was not accepted.
  3. Mrs O’Hara tendered for 17 runs with only 9 buses. Of the buses nominated in her tenders only 4 buses were stated to be of, or in excess of the stipulated capacity. She secured 4 contracts. Her prices for the runs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 were lower than the successful tenderer. She could not have been awarded contracts for all these runs even if her buses had been of the required capacity, as she did not have sufficient vehicles left to service these runs and to provide adequate back-up.
  4. Robert E. Lee had an arrangement to use or lease 3 buses. He was the lowest tenderer.
  5. The registered number and licenced capacity for each of the buses described in Annexure ‘D’ to the Tender Schedule are:
  1. Matilda Tours nominated 10 buses. Robert E. Lee nominated three which were owned by Matilda Tours and which were included in their ten.
  2. The answers given by Robert E. Lee and Matilda Tours respectively to Question 1 of Annexure ‘C ‘ to the Tender Schedule are:

Robert E. Lee- 3 vehicles

Matilda Tours- 10 vehicles plus

  1. The answers given in respect of Question 2 of Annexure ‘C were:

    1. Robert E. Lee-

Matilda Tours 10

  1. Matilda Tours- option to purchase 4 additional vehicles from A.P.C. of Melbourne and Premier Roadlines Adelaide.

    1. They stated capacities all of which were of 62 or more.
    2. Yes- each statement is correct.
    3. Prior to the current round of tenders called in September 1 976, a minimum capacity was not nominated in tender documents. At no time was the requirement 60.
    4. The decision to specify a minimum capacity of 62 persons in the tender documents arose from the estimate of load sizes prepared by the Department and based on growth rates in the previous year. It was calculated that this capacity was the smallest number necessary to maximise the benefit to be gained from the costf each run. It is noteworthy that the estimates have fallen short of actual loadings and made it necessary for three extra runs to be offered for tender.
    5. No documentation exists proving 62 passenger capacity is necessary. The Transport Manager assessed the requirement as such based on his experience in 1976 and past years.
    6. 14) The Transport Manager has received complaints of this nature most of which have had little substance. Appropriate action has been taken.
    7. The statement implicit in this question is incorrect.
    8. 16) It is not possible to verify this statement as the 1 972 contract documents were destroyed in the cyclone of 1974.

It has always been the policy of the Department of the Northern Territory to encourage healthy competition in the private sector in the Northern Territory, as well as promote and develop the growth of local industry in the Northern Territory.

  1. Mrs O’Hara was informed that Matilda Tours had buses of the required capacity and that Matilda Tours would have to take action to have the licences varied before the contract commenced to enable standing passengers to be carried. This was done.
  2. The Tender Board did not solicit this information from Matilda Tours. The obligation rests with tenderers to keep the Tender Board informed of any changes in the basic data presented to the Board.
  3. Mrs O’Hara did not volunteer this information until well after tenders had closed, contracts were let and the service commenced. In fact, the information was gathered from her tenders submitted for three additional runs which closed on 4April 1977.
  4. (a) Three additional contracts have been let by the same Tender Board.

    1. The question is not understood.
    2. The term approximately 60 passengers was used in this instance as passenger loadings are not critical. The runs are required only to relieve heavy excess loading demands and not to provide new services. Obviously it is preferable to look at buses of 60 capacity or greater if the service is to be extended for a further period.
  5. The runs were planned by the Transport Manager.
  6. No.
  7. The original requirements for 1977 are based on an assessment of needs made before the end of the previous contracts. For the 1977 contracts, tender documents were distributed or made available at the end of September 1976, and tenders closed on 25 October 1976. Enrolments at three schools in 1977 were much heavier than anticipated. The Government bus service has been covering these runs until requirements have firmed and contracts could be awarded. If the requirement still exists in 1978 the contracts will be extended. The tender docunts provided for an option to extend beyond 1977.
  8. This is the first time that an allegation of this nature has been brought to my attention and I understand the first time it has been advanced. The accusation here is of a very serious nature and if any information to support the charge is produced an enquiry into the allegation will be made immediately.
  9. The matters raised by Mrs O’Hara and those subsequently brought to light have been the subject of an intensive departmental investigation. Mrs O’Hara’s letter was received in my office on 17 February and was acknowledged on that date.

My reply went forward on 28 April 1 977.

  1. Yes. It is necessary to restructure runs to match changes in school zones, shifts in population and opening of new schools. Most runs have been modified slightly. Runs 3, 10 and 17 have been reduced and runs 5, 9, 1 1, 13, 16 have been increased, to a greater extent. Balance of the overall kilometerage awarded to individual contractors has been maintained.
  2. Daily kilometers run on all routes are as follows:

South Vietnamese Refugees (Question No. 615)

Mr Abel:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs the following question, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was Australia ‘s population as at 1 April 1 975.
  2. Can he say how many refugees from South Vietnam were accepted as immigrants by (a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) the United States of America, and (d ) any other country.
  3. What has been (a) total value and (b) form of foreign aid to Vietnam from (i) Australia, (ii) Canada, (iii) the U!S. and (iv) any other country which has accepted South Vietnamese refugees and given aid since April 1975.
  4. For each country that has accepted South Vietnamese refugees, what percentage of its immigrants have been from South Vietnam since April 1975.
  5. What plans does the Government have for relocating South Vietnamese emigrants in Australia in the future.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Approximately 13 500 000.
  2. (a) In the period 1 April 1975 to 1 June 1977, Australia has accepted 206 1 Vietnamese refugees. (b), (c) and (d) The following information has been derived from a variety of sources. The figures given are approximated estimates only and do not have official status. Definitions of ‘refugees’ may differ from country to country. Some countries which have accepted Vietnamese refugees are not included because information is not available:
  1. and (4) This information is being sought.
  2. I refer the honourable member to my statement of 24 May 1 977, concerning refugee policy and mechanisms.

Attorney-General: Contacts with Mr J. F. Licardy (Question No. 624)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 19 April 1977:

  1. 1 ) On what dates, at what addressesnd in what circumstances has he met Mr John Francis Licardy.
  2. Has he himself or through others

    1. sent communications to Mr Licardy or
    2. received communications from him.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I met a Mr Licardy in Canberra in October 1 975. In March 1 976 a solicitor communicated with me making certain requests on his behalf. I rejected these requests. I cannot recall any other contact with Mr Licardy.

River Murray (Question No. 636)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977:

  1. 1 ) On what dates have the relevant State and Federal Ministers met concerning the report of the River Murray Working Party since the report was presented to the Government in October 1975.
  2. What studies are currently being undertaken into any aspect of the River Murray system.
  3. When did the Biological Conservation Committee complete its report to the working party, will this report be published, and does it recommend any changes to the River Murray Waters Agreement or other legislation.
  4. Has any work yet proceeded on the 2 salinity mitigation works recommended by the working party; if so, what work has been undertaken, and what funds nave been spent; if not, when will work commence on these projects.
  5. Have the relevant governments studied the submission by Professor S. Clark which embraces a number of matters outside the terms of reference of the working party.
  6. If so, has Professor Clark’s submission been endorsed by the governments and will legislation to give effect to his recommendations be introduced into Parliament with other amendments recommended by the working party.
  7. Was recommendation 9.2 of the working party agreed to; if so, have any amendments to the River Murray Waters Agreement been drafted and have they been presented to the governments concerned.
  8. Can he say when these amendments will be introduced into Parliament; if not, what is causing the delay in preparing the legislation.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) It has not been necessary for State and Federal Ministers to meet concerning the Report of the River Murry Working Party; as this report was agreed to by a Steering Com.mitttee of Federal/State Ministers in October 1975. As a result of correspondence between the Prime Minister and Premiers, agreement was subsequently reached on the report’s recommendations in October 1976.
  2. I understand that as part of an on-going program, a number of studies directly concerned with the planning and management of the water resources of the River Murray are currently being undertaken by the River Murray Commission. These include an investigation, now nearing completion, into the problems associated with limited river channel capacity between Tocumwal and Echuca, improvement to the computer model which simulates the operation of the River Murray system of storages, and the development of procedures for the future hydraulic operation of Dartmouth Dam. A study of the management problems of the floodplain between Hume Dam and Yarranga Weir was recently completed for the River Murray Commission and this report has been issued to interested members of the public. The Inventory of Water Resources Research in Australia 1976, published by my Department on behalf of the Australian Water Resources Council (AWRC) also lists a number of State research projects concerned with the River

Murray system. The inventory also includes a number of water projects being funded under the Commonwealth’s Water Research Fund, the results of which could have indirect application to the River Murray.

  1. As indicated in the Working Party’s report, the Biological Conservation Committee was not in a position to report on its terms of reference and the governments agreed that the work of this and of other committees would be superseded by committees which have since been established by the River Murray Commission, including an Environmental Study Committee.
  2. I refer the honourable member to the answer provided to Senate question No. 310 (1) (Hansard, 21 April 1977, p. 942 ). Commonwealth funds are not involved.
  3. Water quality matters raised in Professor Clark’s submission were taken into account by the Working Party in the formulation of its recommendations which have now been accepted by the governments concerned. As agreed to by the governments, some other matters outside the Working arty ‘s terms of reference relating to the River Murray Commission’s legal status and staffing and various machinery matters have been considered by the River Murray Commission. The Commission has instructed its Special Working Group, convened by Professor Clark, to identify the necessary amendments to the Agreement. Further issues of longer term policy significance raised in the submission, such as flood mitigation, river management and environmental protection, will require more detailed examination by the appropriate committees that have been established by the River Murray Commission.
  4. The four governments have agreed to proceed initially with legislative amendments relating to water quality matters and the additional matters raised in Professor Clark’s submission and referred to in (5) above. The Special Working Group referred to in (5) above will also consider amendments to the River Murray Waters Agreement to enable the River Murray Commission to make recommendations on any further changes to the Agreement which might be necessary.
  5. Yes, with the River Murray Commission assuming the responsibilities of the working party. The necessary amendments to the Agreement are proceeding as indicated in (5) above.
  6. No. I refer the honourable member to the answer provided in Senate question No. 310, PRT (2). The Special Working Group is proceeding with its task as a matter of urgency.

Income Tax: Commonwealth Pensions, Benefits and Allowances (Question No. 639)

Mr Neil:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 April 1977:

Which pensions, benefits and allowances provided by the Government have been (a) subject and (b) not subject to income tax in each of the years from 1 970 to date.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

From 1 January 1970 to 30 June 1973 pensions, benefits and similar allowances provided by the Government were not subject to income tax. Certain payments by way of pension, benefits or allowances became taxable as from 1 July 1973. These included age, service, invalid and widows’ pensions received by a person of pensionable age. A wife’s pension received by the wife of a recipient of one of those taxable pensions was also made taxable. War and war widows’ pensions remained exempt from tax.

For the 1973-74 income year people of age pension were entitled to a rebate of tax otherwise payable and the age allowance of prior years was discontinued. The maximum age rebate was $156 reducing by 25c for each $1 of taxable income over $3,224 (phasing out to nil at taxable income of $3,848). An effect of the age rebate was that an aged person whose taxable income in 1 973-74 was $ 1 ,92 1 or less was not required to pay tax.

The age rebate was reduced to $130 for 1974-75. It operated to free from tax aged people with taxable incomes of $2,358 or less. Aged people with taxable incomes of between $2,358 and $3,224 were granted the full rebate of $130, which shaded out to nil at a taxable income of $3,744. The new personal tax system introduced in 1975-76 meant that no one with a taxable income of less than $2,5 19 was subject to tax. The age rebate (which had freed from tax incomes up to only $2,358 ) was discontinued.

The provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act relating to the taxation of pensions were further amended with effect from 1 July 1976. In the main, these changes brought into the tax field certain pensions paid to persons below age pension age. Consequently widows’ pensions, supporting mothers’ benefits and service pensions (other than those equivalent to invalid pensions) became taxable. At the same time unemployment and sickness benefits also became subject to tax.

The following table sets out further details of the taxation position of the relevant payments as from 1 July 1973 and 1 July 1976.

Immigration: Residents of East Timor (Question No. 689)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

How many nominations of persons in East Timor had been received in each of the eligible categories by the closing date, 22 April 1977, under the special arrangements he announced on 30 March 1977 (Hansard, page 758).

Mr MacKellar:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 701 nominations have been received covering 2668 persons said to be residents of East Timor. They were described by their sponsors as being within the categories eligible to be considered for migrant entry to Australia.

The nominations are within the following categories:

The numbers eligible to be considered by the immigration team will not be known pending completion of a detailed examination of the nominations which is presently in progress. On the basis of available information, it is likely that very few of those nominated on the basis of their occupations being in demand in Australia will in fact have qualifications and/or experience recognised in Australia.

It would appear that a significant number of the families of parents nominated are not dependent members of the parents ‘families.

Post Offices: Calare and Macquarie Electoral Divisions (Question No. 702)

Mr MacKenzie:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 26 April 1977:

In the electoral divisions of Calare and Macquarie (a) what is the location of the official and non-official post offices in 1977, (b) which non-official post offices have been closed in 1975, 1976 and 1977, and (c) how many persons are employed by Australia Post in each official post office.

Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

(b)-

KGB Activities in Australia

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

– On 1 June 1977 (Hansard, page 2279) the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson) asked me a question, without notice, concerning possible activities in Australia of the KGB, with particular reference to the circumstances surrounding the continued presence in Australia of a Russian national, Mr Cheshev. The following is in answer to the honourable member’s question:

Mr Cheshev was a member of a Russian student pany who sought to stay in Australia in April. His case is currently being examined by the Depanment of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs with a view to considering his application for permanent residence.

When Mr Cheshev ‘s case became known to the Embassy, the Embassy sought permission from the Depanment of Foreign Affairs to interview Mr Cheshev. The request was initially referred to Mr Cheshev who refused, out subsequently agreed to an interview. A condition was that the interview take place in the presence of Australian Foreign Affairs officers, including a Russian speaking officer. The interview took place and Mr Cheshev maintained his intention to remain in Australia. Embassy officials who participated in the interview were Mr Raina and Mr Voskaresensky.

The Government has no information to indicate that Mr Raina has previously been posted in the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister recently reminded the House the Government looks to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to provide timely advice on all matters which might affect the security of this country, including improper activities by any foreign intelligence service in Australia.

Wheat and Barley (Question No. 21)

Mr McVeigh:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will he initiate discussions with importing and exporting wheat countries with a view to implementing an international wheat agreement for the purposes of ensuring orderly marketing on a world-wide basis so that world wheat and flour needs will be met at prices which allow farmers to receive a just return and which ensure that importers are able to buy at just prices.
  2. ) Can he say what effects the extraordinarily heavy snow falls in North America will have on (a) the North American wheat and barley crops and (b) world supplies of these crops.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

Australia is actively participating in ongoing international discussions concerning a new International Wheat Agreement to replace the existing Agreement which is due to expire on 30 June 1978.

Since 1974, a great deal of preparatory work has been carried out on mechanisms which might form the basis of a new Wheat Agreement. Most of this work has been undertaken in the International Wheat Council in London but discussions are also proceeding in Geneva in the context of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Australia is participating in these discussions.

There is widespread acceptance that the objectives of a new International Wheat Agreement should include the stabilisation of world wheat markets in order to help ensure adequate supplies at reasonable prices and improved world food security. However, for a number of technical and other reasons, including differences of approach among some of the major participants, it has not yet been possible to progress to the stage of actual negotiations.

The concept of reserve stocks to help stabilise the world supplies and prices and improve world food security has been discussed in some detail. Australia has pointed out that an arrangement providing for the accumulation and release of stocks would need to contain measures to safeguard commercial trade, if such an arrangement is to have reasonable prospects of success on a continuing basis. We are particularly conscious of the need to avoid undue risks that a world stockpile of grains might depress world market prices to unacceptably low levels, thereby prejudicing the Agreement itself and, importantly, the objective of helping to ensure continuing stability of supplies in the interests of the world food security objectives.

Since February this year, the question of new international arrangements for wheat has been the subject of discussion on a number of occasions between Australian officials and senior representatives of the new United States administration and the Canadian Government. In March, Mr D. H. McKay, Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, explored American and Canadian thinking on the subject during a visit to Washington and Ottawa. At a meeting in Ottawa on 2 1 April, the four major wheat exporters (U.S.A., Canada, Australia and Argentina) concluded that there appeared to be a large degree of agreement between importers and exporters on the need for the establishment of a new International Wheat Agreement.

During a visit to Washington and Ottawa later that month I had useful discussions on wheat matters with U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Bergland and other senior Administration officials and with Mr Otto Lang the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I stressed that Australia favoured the early negotiation of a new IWA and that we would continue to play a constructive role in seeking to achieve a new arrangement in the interests of the world community.

A second meeting of major wheat exporters was held in Washington on 27 May and a further meeting is expected to take place following the 80th Session of the International Wheat Council on 28-30 June. (2)On 10 May 1 977 the USDA estimated total U.S. wheat production for the year ending 30 June 1978 at55.8 million tonnes some 2.6 million tonnes below the previous crop. Production of winter wheat which is now being harvested was estimated at around 40.2 million tonnes, a decrease of 6 per cent over the previous year’s crop.

Plantings of spring wheat in the United States have recently been completed and are estimated at 6.2 million ha, or 14 per cent below last year. Plantings of barley, however, have increased by15 per cent to 4.3 million ha and barley production in 1977 could reach 9.8 million tonnes, 20 per cent up on 1976.

The International Wheat Council has forecast wheat production in Canada at between 16 and 20 million tonnes which is considerably down on 1976 production of 23.5 million tonnes. Plantings of barley are expected to be 1 1 per cent above the 4.33 million ha crop in 1976 which produced around 13.0 million tonnes.

The North American wheat crop in 1977 is, therefore, likely to be down substantially on 1976, but the outturn could still be large, given favourable weather conditions. The IWC considers that the world supply-demand situation for wheat in 1977-78 should be reasonably comfortable unless there is a crop failure in one of the major wheat producing regions.

With production increases of barley expected in the United States, Canada and other major course grain producing countries, world barley production in 1977 should be near to the 1976 record of 715 million tonnes and the supply situation would appear to be adequate in 1977-78.

Public Service: Salaries (Question No. 33)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister Assisting the

Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

How many Commonwealth public servants receive a salary (a) in excess of and (b) equal to that of members and senators, i.e. $2 1,250 per annum.

Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. Approximately 2250.
  2. b) No public servants receive a salary of exactly $2 1 , 250. However, the total above includes approximately 500 staff employed in salary ranges with minimum and maximum salaries which straddle $2 1,250.

Commonwealth Employees: Superannuation Scheme (Question No. 62)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Will he indicate which portion of the new superannuation scheme of Commonwealth employees is financed by ( a ) members ‘ contribution and ( b ) the Australian taxpayer.
  2. Did the committee which first reported on the new superannuation scheme reach unanimous agreement on the various aspects of the scheme; if not, on what aspects did it disagree.
  3. What would be the estimated cost of the scheme over the period of 1990 if there is a continued rate of inflation of 12 per cent per annum.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not possible to apportion, in total percentage terms, the financing of the benefits provided under the Superannuation Act 1976. This is because these benefits comprise two separate and independent parts; one is financed by the individual member’ s contributions and the other is financed by the Government. The benefit financed by the member’s contributions depends on the contributions he elects, within specified limits, to pay during his membership of the scheme; the contributions so paid do not bear any particular relationship to the benefit financed by the Government. The maximum attainable level of contributor-financed pension is 20 per cent of final salary. The benefit financed by the Government is usually a pension that is related to the member’s final salary, age at retirement and period of contributory service; the maximum attainable level of Government-financed pension is52½ per cent of final salary.
  2. No. One member of the Treasury Committee on Superannuation presented a minority report proposing a different scheme from that recommended by the majority; the details are set out in Part E of the Committee’s Report (Parliamentary Paper No. 37 of 1973).
  3. The following estimates have been prepared of the annual cost to the Government of the new and old schemes. As required by the question the estimates are based on the assumption that inflation is 12 per cent per annum to 1990. Such an outcome, with all of its consequences, not only for budget outlays but for costs, prices and money incomes generally, would be unacceptable to this Government. The estimates are:

These estimates have been calculated on a number of assumptions in addition to the inflation assumption, including that Commonwealth employees salaries increase in step with inflation and that there is a 2 per cent per annum increase in membership of the scheme. Some of these other assumptions are, of necessity, highly arbitrary and are unlikely to be in accordance with actual experience.

Diplomatic Passports (Question No. 76)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1977:

Does he know of any public servants attached to his Department above the equivalent of a Third Division Officer (a) Class 5, (b) Class 6, (c) Class 7, (d) Class 8, (e) Class 9, (f) Class 10 and (g) Class 1 1 who has not been issued with a diplomatic passport while representing Australia overseas.

Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question for public servants at Australian missions abroad is as follows:

  1. to (f) Yes. (g) No.

Travel by Qantas (Question No. Ill)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 March 1 977:

Will he take steps to ensure that Australian groups who are journeying overseas on fares funded by the Australian Government are required to travel by Qantas Airways Ltd.

Mr MacPhee:
LP

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

Early last year, I wrote to the Prime Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, who are responsible for the provision of funds to the groups referred to by the honourable member, seeking their views on a proposal to use Qantas services wherever practicable.

Each indicated in reply that, while they and their Departments would do whatever is reasonable to encourage Australian sporting teams to travel by Qantas, they would, nevertheless, not agree as a matter of general principle to restrict the freedom of choice of such organisations. I think it is important to note that where assistance is granted, most organisations such as sporting teams receive a 50 per cent travel subsidy from the Government, with the rest of the cost of travel being provided out of the organisation ‘s own funds.

I fully support my colleagues ‘ views on this matter.

Budget: Balanced (Question No. 118)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did he say in his statement to the House on 20 May 1976 that clearly, given the enormous budgetary imbalance which we have inherited, we cannot withdraw to a balanced budget situation overnight.
  2. Did he also say in his Budget Speech on 17 August 1976 that having consistently rejected the pump-priming expedient, however, the Government has not moved to the other extreme of trying to balance the Budget overnight.
  3. How many of the Liberal Government’s Budgets introduced between 1960 and 1972 were balanced.
  4. Is it the Government’s aim to balance the Budget.
  5. ) Why is it economically desirable to balance the Budget rather than have a deficit or surplus of, say, $ 100m.
  6. Is it a fact that if the overall Budget was balanced, there would be a substantial domestic surplus.
  7. Why is it desirable that there be a domestic budgetary surplus.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. In a precise sense, none; however, in 1960-61 the deficit was $32m, in 1969-70 $7m and in the following year $75m.
  4. , (5) and (7) The Government’s aim is to frame a Budget appropriate to prevailing and prospective economic conditions. It came to office with the express aim of restoring responsibility into the nation’s Budget and has been successful in this. Part of this process has been reducing the Budget deficit in 1976-77. The Government has indicated that outlays will be contained to within zero real growth in the 1977-78 Budget and that the deficit will be further reduced. These objectives represent the Government’s aims for the 1977-78 Budget.
  5. Assuming that the usual relationship between overseas outlays and overseas receipts persisted, yes.

Fifth Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum (Question No. 142)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to page 3 of the 5th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum which states that there is a clear conflict of policy looming between the national economic interest and the requirements of State Governments, particularly in implementing policies calculated to have some environmental benefit, notably those relating to vehicular emissions, lead and sulphur levels.
  2. If so, has this question been raised at a Premiers’ Conference or at any other meeting of State and Federal Ministers.
  3. If so, what was the outcome of these discussions and when will action be taken to resolve the problem.
  4. If no discussions have been held, will he take urgent steps to see that these matters are discussed with the States, particularly in view of the fact that the States’ present proposals on lead phase down could add not less than S cents a gallon to the cost of motor spirit and the Commission has found, at page 892 of its Report, that the public health objectives can be achieved at negligible cost by the development of other methods of phasing down lead.
  5. 5 ) As the Commission has clearly illustrated, at page 896 of its Report, that it is dangerous for Government to be without the necessary expertise to examine proposals and independently assess opinions, will he either set up an agency to monitor the refining, distribution, marketing and

Slicing of petroleum or ensure that the Department of National Resources or some other Government authority will adequately fulfil these functions.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. However the Australian Transport Advisory Council, which comprises all State and Commonwealth Transport Ministers, has considered the general question of motor vehicle emissions, as well as the particular problem of lead in petrol. As a prerequisite to the formulation of a policy on the matters raised in the Sth Report, consultations will be held with the relevant State authorities on these issues.
  3. and (4) The Committee on motor vehicle emissions, which advises ATAC, has been asked to consider the relative costs of alternative methods of meeting the precautionary recommendations of the National Health and Medical Research Council on emissions of lead to the atmosphere. This work is currently proceeding. The Government is concerned that environmental and health objectives should be achieved at minimum cost to the community and will continue liaison with the States and the industry to this end.
  4. The matter of how the Government should proceed to obtain information about the industry was raised in the 4th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum. It is a matter which is receiving consideration by the Government.

Alexander Barton Group of Companies (Question No. 146)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. Have any companies in the Alexander Barton group satisfied the Commissioner of Taxation that any moneys raised through share issues were to be expended or had been expended in exploration for minerals; if so, when and what were the names of the companies.
  2. Have any companies in the Alexander Barton group ever lodged a declaration with the Commissioner of Taxation pursuant to sections 77C or 77D of the Income Tax Assessment Act or their predecessors, that moneys raised through share issues were or had been used in mineral exploration; if so, which companies and when were the declarations lodged.
  3. Have any of the Alexander Barton group of companies failed to lodge any returns in respect of income tax, sales tax, gift duty or payroll tax, with the Commissioner of Taxation or failed to pay any income tax, sales tax, gift duty or payroll tax assessed; if so, which companies and when.
  4. Have Alexander or Thomas Barton ever failed to lodge any form of taxation return to the Commissioner of

Taxation in respect of sales tax, income tax, gift duty or payroll tax; if so, when.

  1. Have Alexander or Thomas Barton ever failed to pay any tax to the Commissioner of Taxation in respect of income, gifts, payrolls or sales; if so, when and what was the amount of tax assessed and in respect of what items was it assessed.
  2. Have any offences been committed by Alexander or Thomas Barton or any companies with which they have been associated in relation to the taxation or foreign exchange legislation of the Commonwealth; if so, in respect of what legislation have such offences been committed and what action is proposed.
  3. Has the Commissioner of Taxation received satisfaction of the order of Sequestration of the estate of Thomas Barton obtained in the Federal Court of Bankruptcy on 24 August 1974 and upheld by the High Court on 30 December 1974.
  4. What was the outcome of the application of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, who is administering the estate of Thomas Barton, to recover $ 1 70,000 he allegedly lent to his uncle Terence Barton.
  5. What was the outcome of the summonses taken out by the Commissioner of Taxation against Mr Bela Csidei, a former colleague of Mr Alexander Barton, for failure to lodge income tax returns for 1972 to 1975.
  6. 10) Is there any evidence of breach of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations by Alexander or Thomas Barton or any of their companies in respect of the establishment of their Swiss bank accounts; it so, what action is proposed in respect of the breaches.
  7. Is there any evidence of a breach of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations by Alexander or Thomas Barton or any of their companies in respect of the $300,000 allegedly sent to Australia in the middle of 1976; if so, what action is proposed in respect of the breaches.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to ( 1 1 ) I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of the Attorney-General’s Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Bribes: Taxation Deductions (Question No. 147)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Is it possible for corporations or individuals to claim bribes, or other secret commissions given to a Government official in Australia or abroad, as a deduction from assessable income under the Income Tax Assessment Act.
  2. If so, are there any proposals to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act, along the lines of section 162 (c) of the United States Revenue Code, to prevent such deductions being made.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of the Attorney-General’s Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it.

Electorate Secretaries: Benefits (Question No. 149)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the salaries and other benefits paid to electorate secretaries working for (a) State Parliamentarians in each State and (b) Federal Parliamentarians.
  2. What is the average number of constituents in (a) State electoral divisions in each State and (b) Federal electoral divisions.
  3. What is the salary of each grade of research assistant working for (a) Federal Government departments, (b) tertiary institutions and (c) Federal Parliamentarians.
  4. Did questionnaires recently sent to Parliamentarians by the Remuneration Tribunal and jointly by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, refer to the extra staff member of Parliamentarians as ‘ research assistants ‘.
  5. Can he say whether most Federal Parliamentarians hire the additional staff member under their entitlement on research assistant duties rather than on electorate duties.
  6. If so, was the Public Service Board decision, conveyed in a letter dated 5 August 1976 to South Australian secretaries, to reject the claim of secretaries for reclassification partly on the grounds that an extra staff position was made available, based on a misconception of the duties of additional staff members.
  7. Are Federal electorate secretaries paid a salary equivalent to that of steno-secretary Grade 2 in the Public Service.
  8. What are the duties and qualities required of a stenosecretary Grade 2 in the Public Service.
  9. Does the Government agree that the duties of an electorate secretary are more demanding that those of a stenosecretary Grade 2 in the Public Service.
  10. What are the salaries and other benefits of (a) assistant private secretaries to Ministers, (b) secretaries to Judges of the Family Law Court, (c) secretaries to directors of statutory authorities and (d) secretaries to directors of commissions set up by the Federal Government.
  11. 1 1 ) In what way are the duties of these secretaries more demanding or responsible than those of electorate secretaries.
  12. 12) Has there ever been a review of the work load and other factors related to the conditions of service of electorate secretaries and research assistants.
  13. 13) If not, will the Minister institute such a review.
  14. 14) Is it a fact that parliamentarians’ staff do not have the same security of tenure, promotional opportunities or provision of overtime and other allowances as steno-secretaries or other public servants.
  15. 15) Is it a fact that in 1976 a large number of Senators and Members supported increases in the salaries of their staff in submissions to the Remuneration Tribunal, and did the Tribunal conclude on page 34 of its report that it was a matter for the Public Service Board to determine the terms and conditions of service which should apply to staff.
  16. Does the Public Service Board consider that such terms and conditions are matters for the Government.
  17. 1 7 ) If so, will the Minister support the claims of electorate secretaries and research assistants for improved pay and conditions.
Mr Street:
LP

-The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) ( a ) I do not have this information.

    1. (i) The electorate secretaries of Federal Parliamentarians receive salary in the range $9,207-9,773.
    2. Other benefits are as provided in accordance with the Public Service Act and related legislation.
  2. (a) The average number of constituents in State electoral divisions is as follows:

  1. The average number of constituents in Federal electoral divisions as at 25 March 1977 is as follows:
  1. (a) An Assistant Research Officer employed by a Federal Government department receives a salary within the range $7,685-10,124. Minimum rates are payable to occupants of these positions subject to tertiary qualifications held.

    1. The salaries of research assistants working for tertiary institutions vary. Examples of salary ranges for positions of Graduate Assistants Grade 1 and 2 at various tertiary institutions are set out below:
  1. Electorate assistants working for Federal Parliamentarians receive a salary of $9,207. Whether the duties of an electorate assistant include research is a matter for the discretion of the individual parliamentarian and tertiary qualifications are not a formal requirement.

I make no comment on whether or not the duties and responsibilities of the various staff referred to here are comparable or not.

  1. Yes.
  2. No.Itisa matter for each Senator or Member to determine the duties to be performed by his or her electorate assistant.
  3. 6 ) See my answer to ( 5 ) above.
  4. Yes.
  5. The Public Service Board has advised that a stenosecretary Grade 2 in the Public Service performs stenographic, typing and secretarial duties for one or more senior officers by undertaking the duties stated below- receiving and distributing incoming papers and preparing replies of a straightforward nature; channelling and reviewing outgoing papers, maintaining records and files; liaising, as necessary, between the supervisor and his subordinates or other officers; keeping the supervisor’s appointment book and scheduling his appointments and meetings; making travel arrangements; undertaking minor clerical and other office type duties; and screening telephone calls.

The nature and level of the senior officers’ responsibilities and contacts influence the degree of complexity of the total function in which the steno-secretary participates, the amount of knowledge of procedures and work programmes required, and the degree of guidance from the supervisor(s) that is necessary. The senior officers’ responsibilities define the potential range of the steno-secretary ‘s work.

The classification of the steno-secretary is directly reflected in the degree of initiative, level of difficulty and amount of judgment, knowledge and skill involved in the performance of the duties.

  1. I do not propose to comment.
  2. 10 ) The salaries payable are:

    1. Assistant Private Secretaries to Ministers: $10,338-10,905
    2. Personal Secretaries to Judges of the Family Law Court: $10,338-10,905
    3. Secretaries to directors of statutory authorities and Commissions set up by Federal Government:

Salary varies according to designation. Designation is based on the salary level of the director and in some cases an examination by the Public Service Board of the nature of the work and responsibilities.

  1. 1 1 ) I do not know. The duties performed by an electorate secretary are determined by the Senator or Member. The Public Service Board has no control over the range and nature of the duties carried out by electorate secretaries and it is not possible to make an accurate relative assessment capable of general application.
  2. Within the framework of Government decisions regarding the nature and levels of staffing assistance to be made available to Members and Senators from Commonwealth funds, together with those governing the use of such staffing assistance, the Public Service Act is used as the vehicle for employment.

Since positions of secretary/typist (the forerunner of the electorate secretary positions) were first provided for each Member of Parliament, their classification has been reviewed several times always in the context described above.

In relation to overtime, in 1973 the then Department of Services and Property, which had the administrative responsibility for electorate staff of Members and Senators, carried out a study of the incidence of extra duty by electorate secretaries, the extent to which staff were subject to supervision (which is a requirement for payment of overtime under normal conditions) and the degree to which latitude in working hours was allowed by Senators and Members in compensation for extra duty requirements. On the basis of the results of this survey, and against the background of a decision to provideadditional electorate secretary positions for relief purposes, it was concluded that the practice of many years standing of not making overtime payments to electorate secretaries was still appropriate. In addition, since 1 March 1975 Senators and Members have been permitted to engage an electorate assistant.

No review of the work load and entitlements of electorate assistants has been carried out by the Board.

  1. No.
  2. 14) Staff for Members and Senators who are temporary employees have the same security of tenure as other temporary employees. Only officers of the Service may be promoted, but there is nothing preventing any temporary staff member from seeking appointment as an officer by the normal competitive processes.

In relation to overtime and travelling allowance, see my answer to Parliamentary Question No. 406.

  1. Yes.
  2. Within any limits imposed by legislation and by the Government the Public Service Board determines the terms and conditions of service of staffof Members and Senators.
  3. It is not my practice to intervene in matters of this sort.

Note: The salary rates quoted in parts ( 1 ), ( 3 ) and ( 1 0 ) do not take into account the National Wage decision of 24 May 1977.

Atomic Energy Commission: Safeguards (Question No. 174)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What plans exist in his Department for the evacuation and protection ofpersons and property in the areas surrounding the Atomic Energy Commission nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.

Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

Responsibility for plans for the protection of persons and property in the Lucas Heights area, and their co-ordination, rests with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The Commission has had, for many years, arrangements with N.S.W. authorities for the application of appropriate countermeasures for the protection of persons and property (including evacuation as a last resort) in the areas around the Research Establishment should they become necessary. The co-operating N.S.W. authorities are the Police Department, Board of Fire Commissioners, State Emergency Services and Health Commission.

The emergency plans are reviewed, in the light of changing circumstances, at meetings of a Local Liaison Working Party which is composed of representatives of the N.S.W. authorities mentioned above ana officers of the Commission.

The existing arrangements with the NS.W. authorities are being incorporated into a single document entitled “A Plan to Cope with Accidents at the Research Establishment”. This document is being prepared by the Commission in consultation with the authorities mentioned above.

Atomic Energy Commission: Safeguards (Question No. 181)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What plans exist in his Department for the evacuation and protection of persons and property in the areas surrounding the Atomic Energy Commission nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

Responsibility for the co-ordination of plans for the protection of persons and property in the Lucas Heights area rests with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. I am informed that the Commission has detailed plans to deal with any contingency that could arise.

The only role that the Defence Force might have would be in relation to existing arrangements and procedures for providing assistance to the civil authorities in circumstances where these authorities could not cope. It is most unlikely that such assistance would be required in any conceivable situation arising from an incident at Lucas Heights.

East Timorese Refugees (Question No. 197)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1) On what dates, at what places and with what results have Australian and Indonesian officials met to resolve the problems of the East Timorese refugees who came to Australia without their families.
  2. How many of the 205 East Timorese evacuees in Portugal who are believed to have immediate families in Australia have so far been interviewed and how many will now come to Australia (Senate Hansard, 9 December 1976, page 2994 and 10 December 1976, page 3 133).
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1) In the Communique issued on 10 October 1976 at the end of the Prime Minister’s visit to Indonesia, President Soeharto and the Prime Minister announced that they had agreed that Australian and Indonesian officials should meet to resolve the problems of the East Timorese refugees who came to Australia without their families. The following meetings have taken place since then:

The Indonesian Government has agreed in principle to a visit to East Timor by a team of Australian officials to interview Timorese who are eligible for entry to Australia and have been nominated by relatives in Australia. The Australian Government has agreed in principle to a visit to Australia by an Indonesian team to consider applications of Timorese who wish to be reunited with their families in East Timor. Further details are given in the statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of 30 March 1977.

The Government has very much in mind the distress that can be caused when families are separated as a result of events such as those in East Timor and will continue to work actively for a satisfactory solution to the situation.

  1. Information is not available in the form requested by the honourable member. However as at 5 May 1977, the position regarding interviews of East Timorese in Portugal was as follows:

    1. Applications received covered: 638 persons
    2. Applications in process covered: 242 persons
    3. Applicants awaiting interview: 6 persons
    4. Interviews deferred awaiting sponsorship covered: 173 persons
    5. Applications approved for visa issue or visaed covered: 80 persons
    6. Rejected: 137 persons

It is not possible to forecast from the number of persons who have applied and/or been approved to come to Australia, how many will ultimately settle here.

Treasurer: Meeting with Media (Question No. 205)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

On what dates and at what places in December 1976 did he meet or speak with the chairman and managing director of Consolidated Press and Channel Nine.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

It is not the usual practice of Ministers to detail dates, times and places of discussions with individuals carried out in pursuance of their portfolio or electorate responsibilities in response to questions when it is not in any way apparent why such information is being sought or to what it might be relevant. If the honourable member has some particular issue in mind and wishes to place a supplementary question on the Notice Paper it will be fully considered.

Federal-State Ministerial Councils and Advisory Committees (Question No. 228)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

Will he bring up to date the information given on 3 June and 24 August 1976 (Hansard, pages 3014 and 519) on Federal-State Ministerial councils and their advisory committees.

Mr Viner:
LP

-The Minister Assisting the Prime

Minister in Federal Affairs has provided the following information for answer to the honourable member’s question:

The information given in answer to Parliamentary question No. 483 on 3 June and 24 August 1 976 (Hansard, pages 30 1 4 and 5 19) has been updated and is set out below:

Citizenship (Question No. 249)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1) In which local government areas were more than 100 certificates of Australian citizenship conferred during 1 976.
  2. ) How many certificates were conferred in each area.
  3. How many certificates were conferred in each State or Territory.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

– In answer to the honourable member’s question, the following table shows the local government areas in each State and Territory in which more than 100 certificates of Australian citizenship were conferred in 1976; the number of certificates conferred in those areas, and the total number of certificates conferred in each State or Territory.

Queensland Treaties Commission (Question No. 255)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. When did the Queensland Premier’s Department advise that the QueenslanTreaties Commission was examining the question of the necessity for changes in Queensland law to permit agreement to ratification of International Labour Organisation Convention No. 107 Indigenous and Tribal Populations, 1957 (Hansard, 15 February 1977, p. 87).
  2. When did the Queensland Minister for Lands inform him that the Queensland Government does not view favourably the acquisition of lands for development by Aborigines or by Aboriginal groups in isolation (Hansard, 7 December 1976, p. 3370; Queensland Hansard 8 December 1976, p. 2208).
  3. When did the Queensland Premier suggest to the Prime Minister that he might wish to review the purchase by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission of leasehold land near Cardwell (Hansard, 24 February 1977, p. 413).
  4. What have been the date and nature of the replies to these 3 letters.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. I am advised that there has been continuing correspondence at Prime Minister/Premier level on the ownership of land aspects of the Convention between May 1974 and April 1976.
  2. The Queensland Minister’s letter was dated 10 December 1976 and received by me on 13 December 1976.
  3. 1 have not replied to the letter referred to in (2) above. A reply was dealt with in the context of the Prime Minister’s reply to the Queensland Premier.
  4. Correspondence between a Premier and a Prime Minister is normally confidential and it is not for me to break this confidentiality.

Political Broadcasts (Question No. 259)

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

am asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How much time was made available to broadcast election speeches or political advertisements in respect of each political party on each radio broadcasting station and television station in connection with the State elections in Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania in 1976 and in Western Australia in 1 977.
  2. What was the percentage distribution of time purchased by parties and candidates on metropolitan and country commercial broadcasting and television stations.
  3. What were the costs charged for this time, and what was the percentage distribution between parties and candidates of such costs.
Mr ERIC ROBINSON:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

On the basis of information provided to the former Australian Broadcasting Control Board, and subsequently to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, by licensees of commercial broadcasting and television stations, and by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the following tables have been compiled to show the details requested under parts ( 1 ), (2) and (3) of the question.

page 2559

B. NEW SOUTH WALES: GENERAL ELECTION, 1 MAY, 1976

Radio and television broadcasts of election speeches and political advertisements in the "election period " 2 April to 28 April, 1976. {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Special Air Fares to and from Europe (Question No. 290) {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-MH4} ##### Mr Jull: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 10 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What excursion or special fares are available to Australians travelling by air to points within Europe. 1. Do the same fares apply to Europeans flying to Australia. 2. Is it a fact that substantial numbers of persons of European origin, especially of Swiss and Scandinavian descent, nave no cheap fares available to them. 3. If so, will he consider the approval of excursion fares to these countries to enable a two way flow of travellers to take advantage of concessional fares available to people connected with other European nations. {: #subdebate-34-0-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Excursion fares are available to Australians travelling by air to more than 20 points within continental Europe. The fares are: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. 2 1 / 1 80 day excursion fare Australia-Europe. 1. b ) one-way excursion fare Australia-Europe. 1. Excursion fares are also available for Europeans travelling to Australia from these points in Europe. The fares from European points are not in every case the same as the reciprocal tares from Australian points. Some are higher and some are lower. This is due to the differences in currency levels between Australia and the various European countries. 2. and (4) No. Reduced fares are in fact available to other countries in Europe, including Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries. These special reduced fares are based on the excursion fare agreed with the European countries with which Australia nas concluded air services agreements. Normally Australia/Europe fares are established after consideration of recommendations by IATA, but for some years now promotional fares on this route have not been covered by an LATA agreement. In this situation it is only feasible to reach agreement on excursion fares with those European countries whose airlines operate scheduled services to Australia. Nevertheless, these special excursion fares are combinable with normal fares in Europe, so that a special reduced fare is available between Australia and any other point in Europe, including of course Copenhagen, Stockholm and Geneva. For economic reasons the price of the special reduced fares to Switzerland and Scandinavia must reflect the situation that neither area is linked on direct services with Australia. Accordingly, because the passenger has to travel to Copenhagen, Stockholm or Geneva on a combination of services involving a change of aircraft in another country, the cost to the airlines servicing Australia of providing travel to either country is greater than the cost of providing carriage to those European countries that are directly linked on air services with Australia. {:#subdebate-34-1} #### Pensioners: Payment of Medibank Levy (Question No. 310) {: #subdebate-34-1-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many persons in receipt of (a) age, (b) invalid and (c) widow's pension pay (i) full or (ii) part Medibank levy. 1. What percentage of the total of each of these categories of pensioner do these persons represent. 2. How many of each category pay health insurance premiums to a private fund. {: #subdebate-34-1-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to (3) No statistics are at present available on numbers of persons who pay the health insurance levy. However, I mention that age pensioners entitled to Pensioner Health Benefit cards are exempt from the levy. {:#subdebate-34-2} #### Means Test: Estimated Cost of Abolition (Question No. 311) {: #subdebate-34-2-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the estimated annual cost of abolition of the means test for persons of the ages (a) 69 to 70, (b) 68 to 69, (c) 67 to 68, (d ) 66 to 67 and (e) 65 to 66 years. 1. What is the estimated annual return to revenue by way of taxation claw-back resulting from any abolition of the means test for persons within each of the same age groups. {: #subdebate-34-2-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The honourable member's question is similar to Question No. 5 to which the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security supplied an answer in the House of Representatives *Hansard* dated 24 May 1977. The relevant estimates are given in the following extract from the Minister's reply: The following full year costs are gross additional costs based on the estimated population and the number of pensioners at the end of June 1977 and the pension rates applicable from May 1977. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. 69 years: $39m 1. 68 years: S45m 2. 67 years: $58m 3. 66 years: $68 m 4. 65 years: $89m. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the increase in income tax collections that would result if the income test on age pensions were abolished, but it is considered that the additional tax involved would amount to about one-third of the additional pension outlay. {:#subdebate-34-3} #### Farm Boundary Fencing (Question No. 329) {: #subdebate-34-3-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 March 1977: >What would be the estimated cost to revenue for a full financial year if farm boundary fencing adjoining national parks and nature reserves was approved as a full taxation deduction in the year of construction. {: #subdebate-34-3-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Statistics that would enable a satisfactory estimate to be made of the revenue involved are not available. Expenditure on Conservation (Question No. 330) {: #subdebate-34-3-s2 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 March 1977: >What would be the estimated cost to revenue in a full financial year if farm expenditure on (a) soil conservation, (b) water conservation, (c) buildings for fodder conservation and (d) salt land reclamation was approved as a full taxation deduction in the year of expenditure. {: #subdebate-34-3-s3 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Reliable estimates for each of the items listed are not available, but based on statistics relating to deductions formerly allowed under sections 75 and 76 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, it is estimated that the total full-year cost of allowing such deductions in the year of expenditure would be an amount of the order of $30m. {:#subdebate-34-4} #### Country Residents: Tax Deductions for Transport Costs for Medical Attention (Question No. 331) {: #subdebate-34-4-s0 .speaker-JT9} ##### Mr Bungey: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 March 1977: >What would be the estimated cost to revenue in a full financial year if transport and associated costs of country residents seeking specialist medical, dental and optical treatment were approved as being fully tax deductible. {: #subdebate-34-4-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Statistics that would enable a satisfactory estimate to be made are not available. {:#subdebate-34-5} #### Electoral Secretaries and Research Assistants: Entitlements (Question No. 404) {: #subdebate-34-5-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 7 March 1977: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. Does a break in service of 12 months automatically preclude Federal Members' electorate secretaries or research assistants from accrued sick leave and long service leave entitlements. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Does such a break in service also relegate electorate secretaries to the lowest salary grading irrespective of length of previous service and accrued knowledge and experience. 1. Are research assistants paid on a flat rate with no increment for service or experience. If so, why. {: #subdebate-34-5-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) As for Public Service Act staff generally, a break in service of 12 months or less does not automatically preclude electorate secretaries and electorate assistants from accrued sick leave and long service leave entitlements. However a break of more than 12 months does. 1. It is Australian Public Service practice that only in special circumstances will a person on engagement (or on any subsequent re-engagement) commence on other than the minimum of the salary range. 2. In February 1975 the Government when approving the provision of additional assistance for Senators and Members set as an upper limit for the provision of funds the base salary payable to an electorate secretary. {:#subdebate-34-6} #### Staff of Federal Members and Senators (Question No. 405) {: #subdebate-34-6-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are the staff of Members and Senators grossly underpaid by present day remuneration standards. 1. Does responsibility for the salary and conditions of staff of Members and Senators rest with the Government, the Public Service Board or the Remuneration Tribunal. 2. What is the proper course of action for these staff to adopt in order to obtain a speedy and fair hearing for their claims. 3. Has his attention been drawn to reports that these staff are considering forming a Parliamentary Staff Association to be affiliated with the Federated Clerks Union. 4. If so, would the implications of such a move possibly result in militant action by the staff concerned or other such action which could bring Parliament into disrepute. 5. Will he recommend that (a) a work study review of the staff of Members and Senators be carried out and (b) these staff be granted immediately payment of overtime or automatic payment in lieu of overtime. {: #subdebate-34-6-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) I do not propose to comment. 1. Within the limits imposed by legislation and by the Government, the Public Service Board determines the salary and conditions of service of staff of Members and Senators. 2. The staff should adopt the normal procedure of approaching the Public Service Board either directly or through my Department. 3. Yes. 4. 5 ) I do not propose to comment. 5. No. {:#subdebate-34-7} #### Public Servants: Conditions of Service (Question No. 406) {: #subdebate-34-7-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 17 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the conditions of service of Public Servants. 1. 2 ) In what way do the conditions of service of ( a ) electorate secretaries, (b) research assistants and (c) relief electorate secretaries differ from those of the remainder of the Public Service. 2. Do the staff of Members of Parliament referred to in part (2) receive (a) payment for overtime worked and (b) travelling allowance m the course of carrying out their duties. If not, why not. 3. Do research assistants to Ministers receive additional benefits such as overtime and travelling allowance. If so, why. {: #subdebate-34-7-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The conditions of service of Australian Public Servants are included in the Public Service Act, regulations and determinations made under that Act, the Board's General Orders relating to the Public Service Act and Regulations, arbitration determinations, awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and in the various Acts dealing with specific conditions such as compensation and superannuation. 1. The conditions of service other than salary, which apply to electorate secretaries, electorate assistants and relief electorate secretaries are the same as for other temporary employees under the Public Service Act, except that they have been exempted from certain provisions concerning normal registration and selection requirements and the one year limitation on the term of employment of temporary staff. 2. (a) Funds have not been provided by the Government for the payment of overtime to electorate secretaries and electorate assistants as they are provided to staff electorate offices during business hours only. Similarly, overtime has not been paid to relief electorate secretaries. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. It has not been the practice in the past to pay travelling allowance to electorate staff. However, the AttorneyGeneral's Department has recently expressed the opinion that a member of electorate staff who is travelling at the direction of a member pursuant to Clause 2.8 of Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 1976/6 is entitled to payment of travelling allowance in accordance with Public Service Regulations. In view of this opinion it is proposed to meet claims for travel undertaken subsequent to the date of the Determination. Relief electorate secretaries receive normal travelling allowance when relief duty requires their absence from their headquarters. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Electorate assistants to Ministers are entitled to the payment of travelling allowance when required by the Minister to travel between the electorate office and Canberra. There is no entitlement to overtime payments. {:#subdebate-34-8} #### Reply to Letter (Question No. 427) {: #subdebate-34-8-s0 .speaker-KZY} ##### Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) When will he acknowledge receipt of my letter to him of 2 December 1976 seeking an explanation of the term conditionality'. 1. ) When will he answer that letter. {: #subdebate-34-8-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) I have replied recently to the honourable member's letter. Meaning of 'Conditionality' (Question No. 428) {: #subdebate-34-8-s2 .speaker-KZY} ##### Mr ANTONY WHITLAM:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the meaning of the term 'conditionality' *(Hansard,* 1 December 1976, page 3022). 1. In which authoritative commentaries and texts of international financing is this term used. {: #subdebate-34-8-s3 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) See my answer to Question No. 427. {:#subdebate-34-9} #### Household Disposable Income (Question No. 459) {: #subdebate-34-9-s0 .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr Hurford: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the seasonally adjusted household disposable income in the December quarter 1976. 1. When deflated by (a) the Consumer Price Index and (b) the implied deflator for private consumption expenditure, what was the percentage difference, positive or negative, when compared with (i) the previous quarter and (ii) the December quarter 1975. {: #subdebate-34-9-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. $13,540m. 1. (a)(i) -4.5 percent; (ii) -2.1 percent. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. (i) -1.0 per cent; (ii) + 1.15 percent. Movements in the Consumer Price Index over the last two years have been noticeably influenced by the introduction of the Medibank scheme in July 1975 and by the change made to the scheme from October 1976. If hospital and medical services charges are removed from the Index, the answers to question 2 (a) are (i) -1.6, and (ii) + 1.0. These latter figures are broadly in line with those, using the consumption deflator, given in the answer to question 2(b). {:#subdebate-34-10} #### Swiss Weiss Credit Bank (Question No. 469) {: #subdebate-34-10-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the report in the *Australian Financial Review* of 15 March 1977 concerning the collapse of the Swiss Weiss Credit Bank. If so, is the report accurate. 1. Who are the shareholders in this bank. 2. Was this bank or any of its subsidiaries authorised to carry on banking business in Australia under the Banking Act. 3. Was this bank registered under the Financial Corporations Act. 4. How much foreign money was invested in Australia through this bank in each month since 1 970. 5. Has this bank or any of its subsidiaries always complied with the statutory reserve deposit requirement of the Reserve Bank. If not, why not. 6. Has this bank or any of its subsidiaries always complied with the Government's foreign investment guidelines. If not, why not. 7. Has this bank or any of its subsidiaries ever breached the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations. If so, which regulations. 8. Has the Reserve Bank asked that proceedings be brought against this bank or any of its subsidiaries, **Mr Renzo** Di Piramo, or any other officer or director of the bank for breach of the provisions of the Banking Act, the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations or the Financial Corporations Act or the regulations thereunder. 9. 10) Does this bank or any of its subsidiaries accept deposits from persons ordinarily resident in Australia. If so, how much money has been deposited by these persons with the bank in each month since 1 970. 10. 1 1 ) Is this bank, or any of its subsidiaries, incorporated or registered in any State or Territory as a foreign corporation. If so, which State or Territory. 11. Is this bank registered with the securities industry legislation of any State or Territory. 12. Have the activities of this bank or any of its subsidiaries been the subject of consideration by any officers of the Department of the Treasury with a view to proceedings being brought for breach of any applicable legislation. 13. 14) Did an officer of the Department of the Treasury decide that no proceedings should be brought against this bank or any of its directors, officers or subsidiaries. If so, what were the grounds for this decision. {: #subdebate-34-10-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (14) I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of the Attorney-General's Department. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it. {:#subdebate-34-11} #### Taxation (Question No. 516) {: #subdebate-34-11-s0 .speaker-QF4} ##### Mr Connolly:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What taxation concessions, rebates or other forms of taxation relief are available to the following groups of people: (a) male divorcees, particularly with respect to relief for those paying maintenance for children for whom the former wife is entitled to family allowances, (b) male "single" supporting parents, (c) female "single" supporting parents and (d) persons who are maintaining or helping to maintain relatives in nursing homes. 1. With regard to "single" supporting parents, what would be the cost to revenue if child minding expenses were an allowable tax deduction or a rebatable matter. {: #subdebate-34-11-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) (a) In common with all resident individual taxpayers, a male divorcee is, for the 1976-77 income year, entitled to the general rebate of $610 or 40 per cent of his rebatable expenditure for that year, whichever is the greater. For this purpose his rebatable expenditure would include, subject to any maximum statutory limit, medical, education or funeral expenses and life insurance premiums paid directly by him in respect of his children. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. and (c) If a resident, a "single" supporting parent, whether male or female, would be entitled to the general rebate of tax on the same basis as in (a) above. In addition, he or she may, if specific requirements of the income tax law are met, be entitled to the sole parent rebate (maximum $350 in 1976-77) or the housekeeper ($500) rebate. In broad terms, the sole parent rebate is available to taxpayers who have the sole care of a dependent child or children under 16 or a dependent full-time student (or students) under 25. The housekeeper rebate is available in respect of a person wholly engaged in keeping house for a taxpayer and in caring for a taxpayer's child or student dependant. {: type="a" start="d"} 0. Resident persons who are maintaining or helping to maintain relatives in nursing homes would also be entitled in the 1976-77 year to the general rebate of $610 or 40 per cent of rebatable expenditure whichever is the greater. For this purpose the rebatable expenditure would include any medical expenses or funeral expenses (up to $ 100 per dependant) paid in respect of a dependent relative. As a general rule, nursing home fees are accepted as medical expenses only where the relative is an inmate of an approved nursing home and is entitled to receive intensive care benefits for the care provided. A dependant allowance would be available if the relative is a parent, parent-in-law or invalid relative, as defined, of the taxpayer and received during the year separate net income of less than $1,978, if a parent or parentinlaw, or $ 1,074, if an invalid relative. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. If child minding expenses up to a limit of $250 per child were allowed as a deduction to "single" supporting parents who do not at present incur education expenses that may qualify for concessional rebate, the annual cost to revenue would be about $2m. If this amount were allowable as concessional rebatable expenditure the annual revenue cost would be about $200,000. {:#subdebate-34-12} #### Foreign Investment Review Board (Question No. 523) {: #subdebate-34-12-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Who are the members of the Foreign Investment Review Board. 1. ) When will legislation be introduced to regulate foreign investment in Australia as announced by him on 1 April 1976 *(Hansard,* page 1288). 2. Are there any proposals to further amend the Foreign Takeovers Act. 3. Has the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs consulted with him concerning his proposal to repeal section 50 of the Trade Practices Act. 4. Has the Foreign Investment Review Board given reports to the Government on any of the matters mentioned by the Treasurer in his statement, such as inter-company pricing *(Hansard,* 1 April 1976, page 1287). 5. If so, when will these reports be tabled in the Parliament; if it is not intended to table them, what is the reason. 6. What proposals have been considered by the Foreign Investment Review Board. 7. 8 ) What has been the Board 's decision in each case. 8. What are the names of the parties involved in each proposal considered. {: #subdebate-34-12-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I have been informed that this question was prepared by an officer of the Attorney-General's Depanment. In these circumstances I do not propose to answer it. {:#subdebate-34-13} #### Air New Zealand (Question No. 549) {: #subdebate-34-13-s0 .speaker-MH4} ##### Mr Jull: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 30 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has Air New Zealand been heavily fined for breaches of the international Air Transport Association regulations in its dealing with a Melbourne company; if so, what was the fine. 1. Has the Depanment of Transport investigated Air New Zealand operations in Australia, and have any contraventions of the Air Navigation Regulations by the company been uncovered; if so, what reprimand has been made by the Government. 2. Have any other international carriers been charged with contravention of the regulations since April 1 976. {: #subdebate-34-13-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. $US 17,500.00. 1. The circumstances surrounding Air New Zealand's fine involved contraventions against LATA regulations concerning "contra-deals". The Department has recently reviewed its filing requirements relating to "contra-deals" and will shortly be advising the international airline industry of the revised filing requirements. 2. No. {:#subdebate-34-14} #### Weisscredit (Question No. 554) {: #subdebate-34-14-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP am asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 March 1977: >Have any authorities for which he is ministerially responsible had inquiries (a) from Switzerland or (b) from any other country about (i) the operations of Weisscredit in Australia or (ii) the whereabouts of **Mr Renzo** di Piramo. {: #subdebate-34-14-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: >I understand that official enquiries have been made from overseas concerning aspects of the operations of the company referred to in the honourable member's question. I do not believe that it would be appropriate, on general grounds, for me to provide details as to the origins or nature of enquiries of this kind as they relate to a specific company and as questions of confidentiality are involved. {:#subdebate-34-15} #### Treasurer: Overseas Visits (Question No. 571) {: #subdebate-34-15-s0 .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr Hurford: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many overseas visits has he made since the Liberal-National Country Party Government assumed office. 1. Which countries did he visit. 2. What was the purpose of each visit. 3. What official consultations were undertaken. 4. What are the names, classifications and salaries of each member of the party which accompanied him. 5. What are the names of the places visited. 6. What was the cost for each member of the party for (a) travel, (b) accommodation and (c) incidentals. {: #subdebate-34-15-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Five overseas visits. 1. to (7) These are answered below, separately for each trip. {: .page-start } page 2572 {:#debate-35} ### INDONESIA DATE 11 to 26 April 1976. {: .page-start } page 2572 {:#debate-36} ### PURPOSE To attend the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank. (The Treasurer is Governor of the Bank for Australia ). {: .page-start } page 2572 {:#debate-37} ### OFFICIAL CONSULTATIONS UNDERTAKEN Attendance at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank. Meetings with: **Mr S.** Inoue, President of the ADB **Mr A.** Wardhana, Indonesian Minister for Finance **Mr B.** Bell, Regional Vice President, East Asia and Pacific, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The ADB meeting also provided a useful opportunity for informal talks with Finance Ministers and other representatives of member countries. {: .page-start } page 2572 {:#debate-38} ### FRANCE AND UNITED KINGDOM DATE Rome 18 to 20 June 1976* France 21 to 22 June 1976 United Kingdom 22 to 25 June 1 976. {: .page-start } page 2572 {:#debate-39} ### PURPOSE To attend the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Ministerial Council Meeting in Paris. To undertake consultations and discussions with members of the UK Parliament and leading financial and industrial officials. {: .page-start } page 2572 {:#debate-40} ### OFFICIAL CONSULTATIONS UNDERTAKEN France: Attendance at the OECD Ministeral Council Meeting. The visit to France also provided a useful opportunity for the Treasurer to have informal discussions with **Mr Healey,** Chancellor of the Exchequer for the United Kingdom. United Kingdom: Discussions with: The Rt Hon. Harlod Lever, M.P., Chancellor of the Duchy ofLancaster The Rt Hon. Joel Barnett, M.P., Minister for Housing and Construction **Mr Christopher** McMahon, Executive Director, Bank of England The Rt Hon. Margaret Thatcher, M.P., Leader of the Opposition The Rt **Hon. Sir Keith** Joseph, Bt, M.P., Member of the Shadow Cabinet with overall responsibility for policy and research The Rt **Hon. Sir Geoffrey** Howe, Q.C., M.P. Shadow Chancellor **Sir Gordon** Richardson, Governor of the BankofEngland **Mr Norman** Willis, Assistant Secretary, Trades Union Congress. {: .page-start } page 2572 {:#debate-41} ### PLACES VISITED Rome, Paris, London. HONG KONG AND MANILA DATE Hong Kong 24 September to 1 October 1976. Manila 2 to 9 October 1 976. PURPOSE To attend the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting in Hong Kong. To attend the 1976 Annual Meetings of the Boards of Governors of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and its affiliates in Manila. OFFICAL CONSULTATIONS UNDERTAKEN Hong Kong: Commonwealth Finance Minister's Meeting. Officials in the accompanying party also attended the Meeting of the Board of Representatives of the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation and the Commonwealth Senior Officials' Meeting. Manila: Meeting of Interim Committee of the Governors of the IMF. Meeting of IMF/IBRD Joint Development Committee. IMF/IBRD Annual Meetings. Discussions with President Marcos and Senior Ministers of the Philippines Government. PLACES VISITED Hong Kong. Manila. WEST GERMANY AND SWITZERLAND DATE West Germany 20 to 27 October 1 976. Switzerland 27 to 28 October 1 976. Athens 28 to 29 October 1 976*. PURPOSE To undertake consultations with senior German Ministers in the finance and economic area and leading bankers and industrialists mainly in relation to economic policy and Australia 's foreign investment policy. To have discussions with bankers and industrialists in Switzerland. OFFICIAL CONSULTATIONS UNDERTAKEN West Germany: Meetings with: **Dr Apel,** Finance Minister **Dr Klasen, President** of the Bundesbank **Dr Kohl,** Leader of the Opposition **Dr Rohwedder,** State Secretary, Economics Ministry **Dr Fischer,** Treasurer, IG Metall Other banking and business leaders including the German Federation of Industry (BDI). **Mrs Lynch** also launched the 'Australian Venture', a ship built in Bremen for the Australian National Line. Switzerland: Meetings with representatives of Swiss banking and business enterprises. PLACES VISITED West Germany: Bremen, Munich, Bonn, Frankfurt. Switzerland: Zurich. JAPAN DATE 14 to 19 January 1977. PURPOSE To attend the Fourth Meeting of the Australia-Japan Ministerial Committee. OFFICIAL CONSULTATIONS UNDERTAKEN Attendance at the Fourth Meeting of the Australia- Japan Ministerial Committee. During the Plenary Sessions there were discussions with: **Mr H.** Boh, Finance Minister MrT. Kuranari, Director-General Economic Planning Agency. There were also separate discussions with: **Mr Fukuda,** Prime Minister of Japan **Mr S.** Sumita, President of the Export.Import Bank of Japan MrS. Yokoyama, President of the Bank of Tokyo **Mr K.** Ikeura, President of the Industrial Bank of Japan **Mr M.** Murata, ViceChairman of Nomura Securities **Mr S.** Nagano, President of the Japan Chamber of Commerce. PLACES VISITED The meetings were all conducted in Tokyo. these figures represent only those amounts so far brought to account and are not necessarily final figures for each visit. {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Supporting Fathers' Benefit (Question No. 582) {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP am asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 3 1 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Prime Minister tell correspondents in November 1975 that the Liberal Party considers the benefits at present payable to supporting fathers to be most inequitable and that under a Liberal-National Country Party Government supporting fathers would be treated in the same way as supporting mothers and the amount payable to them would be a realistic one. 1. How many single supporting fathers are there in Australia. 2. What would be the annual cost of paying the same benefits to them as are at present paid to single supporting mothers. {: #subdebate-41-0-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) It would not be appropriate for me to divulge the contents of any correspondence which may have taken place between the Prime Minister and his correspondents. 1. ) See answer to Senate question No. 9 1 9. 2. It is not possible to obtain the exact cost of paying single supporting fathers the same benefits as are at present paid to single supporting mothers because of lack of accurate data relating to the income distribution of such families. However, a costing based on preliminary data from the survey of families conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in May 1975 indicates that the full year cost of such a benefit would be to the order of $8. 10m. For the purposes of this costing it was assumed that there would be no change in the workforce participation of the supporting fathers as a result of the introduction of the benefit and also that all those eligible for the benefit would receive it. *HMAS Melbourne* (Question No. 596) {: #subdebate-41-0-s2 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What was the actual time spent at sea by *HMAS Melbourne* for each of the last 6 years? 1. What sum was spent on- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. operating costs; 1. capital equipment; and 2. refitting for each of those years? {: #subdebate-41-0-s3 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (D- The ship underwent an extended refit from April 1975 to June 1976: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Approximate costs are: {:#subdebate-41-1} #### Overpayment of Pensions (Question No. 611) {: #subdebate-41-1-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the total number of age and invalid pensioners whose pensions are being overpaid as a result of the introduction of the new income test on 25 November 1976. 1. What was the total overpayment made to these pensioners for the fortnight following the introduction of the new income test. 2. What is the number of age and invalid pensioners whose pensions were increased following the introduction of the income test. 3. What was the total additional moneys paid to these pensioners for the fortnight following the introduction of the income test. {: #subdebate-41-1-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (3) In a statement I made to the press on 10 May 1977, concerning the pension and benefit increases which applied from early May, I indicated that when the change was made from a means-test to an income-test some 155 000 pensioners throughout Australia received increased amounts (this included widow pensioners and supporting mother beneficiaries). I also indicated that slightly fewer than 50 000 pensioners were receiving a higher pension than they would have been entitled to under the new income test. Special provision was made in the legislation to save pension being reduced in these cases. 1. and (4) The information is not available. {:#subdebate-41-2} #### Aboriginal Housing (Question No. 633) {: #subdebate-41-2-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP am asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 19 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What grants were made to each State and how many houses were provided in each State for Aboriginal housing in each year since the Australian Government first made grants to the States for that purpose. 1. How many houses were provided for Aboriginal housing in each State in each year since his Department or its precursor first made grants itself for that purpose. 2. Did his Department's explanatory notes for the 1976-77 Estimates forecast that 229 houses would be provided by Aboriginal Housing Associations in 1976-77 compared with 589 in 1975-76. and that 260 houses would be provided by State authorities in 1 976-77 compared with 555 m 1975-76; if so, are these forecasts still valid. 3. Of the 1144 houses provided in 1975-76, how many were only partially completed *(Hansard,* 31 March 1977, page 797). 4. Do the housing programs of the Departments of Social Security, Veterans' Affairs or Environment, Housing and Community Development, provide any specific allocations for Aboriginal housing. 5. What is the estimated total requirement for Aboriginal housing, and at what rate is it increasing annually. {: #subdebate-41-2-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Grants to the State for Aboriginal housing in each year since funding commenced by the Australian Government ($000s): Number of houses provided for Aboriginals through Grants to the States: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The number of houses provided through GrantsinAid for Aboriginal housing in each State since funding commenced, in addition to housing provided through State Grants (see 1 above), is as follows: The break-up of houses by year prior to 1975-76 is not available. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. My Department's explanatory notes for the 1976-77 estimate did forecast that 229 houses would be provided by Aboriginal Housing Associations in 1976-77 compared with 589 in 1975-76, and that 260 houses would be provided by State Authorities in 1976-77 compared with 555 in 1975-76. The forecasts need to be revised upwards following the additional allocation of $25m for Aboriginal Affairs. Further funds have been made available for Aboriginal housing programs, and it is now estimated that in 1976-77 408 houses will be provided by Aboriginal Housing Associations and 480 houses will be provided by State Authorities. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. None of the 1144 houses provided in 1975-76 were only partially completed. 1. No. 2. The estimated total requirement for Aboriginal housing is of the order of 1 1 400 units, and it is increasing at the rate of over 1000 units annually. It is not known how much of this demand is met from normal community sources. {:#subdebate-41-3} #### Commonwealth-State Relations (Question No. 634) {: #subdebate-41-3-s0 .speaker-JW8} ##### Mr Carige: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports of increasing concern in some sections of the Australian community at the Government's protracted delays in reversing some fundamental national changes brought about by the previous socialist Government. 1. Will he help improve relationships with the States and further acknowledge their role by issuing an instruction to improve the present inane and repetitious phrase on Australian bank notes of 'This Australian note is legal tender throughout Australia and its territories'. 2. Will the Government acknowledge the presence of the States and their unique place in Australia's democratic system (a) by changing the phrase to read 'This Australian note is legal tender throughout the Commonwealth and its territories' or something appropriately similar and (b) by a more prominent display of the words 'Commonwealth of Australia ' standing alone as at present. 3. Will he also (a) consider re-instatement of the word Commonwealth' preceding 'Grants Commission', (b) reintroduce 'Commonwealth Government Bonds' in place of Australian Government Bonds' and (c) commission an inquiry into other areas of Government where the word Commonwealth' may be re-introduced without incurring substantial financial costs. {: #subdebate-41-3-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) I am not aware of the reports to which the honourable member for Capricornia has referred. 1. and (3) Because of the costs involved and for other reasons it has been decided not to request the Reserve Bank of Australia, which is responsible for the note issue, to change the wording on Australian notes. The Reserve Bank is the only authority authorised to issue 'bank' notes in Australia and these have been described in the relevant statutes as' Australian notes ' since 1910. 4(a) The Grants Commission Act was amended in 1976 to provide, among other things, for the insertion of the word Commonwealth' before the words 'Grants Commission' in the name of that body. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Nomenclature for Commonwealth bonds had remained unchanged for many years. Whilst the term 'Australian Government Bonds' may have been used informally by the previous Government, the securities are formally known as: Commonwealth of Australia- Treasury Bonds' Commonwealth of Australia- Treasury Bills' Commonwealth of Australia- Treasury Notes' Commonwealth of Australia -Australian Savings Bonds' Commonwealth of Australia- Special Bonds' Commonwealth Government Inscribed Stock' as appropriate. {: type="a" start="c"} 0. Shortly after taking office the Government decided that the title 'Commonwealth of Australia' or derived expressions such as 'Commonwealth Government' would be used in internal contexts while, in external contexts, the titles Australia ' or 'Australian Government ' would continue to be used. At the same time, however, mindful of the need for strict financial stringency, the Government directed that names on buildings should not be changed, existing stocks of stationery should be used up and changes in legislation should only be made when other amendments were necessary. All Ministers were asked to bring the Government's decision to the attention of Departments and statutory bodies within their administrative control. Consequently, there would not appear to be any need to establish an inquiry along the lines suggested. {:#subdebate-41-4} #### Australian Capital Territory Teachers' Federation: Strike (Question No. 645) {: #subdebate-41-4-s0 .speaker-KOB} ##### Mr Haslem: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Was there a strike by members of the Australian Capital Territory Teachers' Federation on Tuesday, 12 April 1977. 1. If so, how many teachers attended school on 12 April 1977. 2. What is the total number of teachers in the Australian Capital Territory. 3. Do headmasters of schools in the A.C.T. have the right to request staff members to indicate whether they will or will not be taking part in strike action where the strike action has been previously and publicly announced by the Teachers' Federation. {: #subdebate-41-4-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. 1338. 2. There were 2808 teachers in the Australian Capital Territory at 30 April 1977, of these 181 were on approved leave, leaving an operative teaching force of 2627 at that date. 3. Headmasters do have the right to ask staff members whether they propose to participate in strike action. Some difficulties have existed with this in the past but it is essential that this information is conveyed to parents to enable them to take appropriate action if any problem with supervision at the schools exist in circumstances of industrial unrest. Governor-General: Accommodation in Sydney (Question No. 647) {: #subdebate-41-4-s2 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP on asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 April 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On which dates has the Governor-General stayed at public expense at hotels in Sydney in 1976 or 1977 and at which hotels has he stayed. 1. Why did His Excellency not stay at Admiralty House or Kirribilli House on those occasions. {: #subdebate-41-4-s3 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)I have no information to give the honourable member on this matter. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Because of renovations being carried out at Admiralty House, the Governor-General has stayed variously at Kirribilli House when Admiralty House was not available and at hotels in Sydney when neither Admiralty House nor Kirribilli House was available. {:#subdebate-41-5} #### Reserve Bank: Letters of Credit (Question No. 683) {: #subdebate-41-5-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 April 1977: >What was the value of irrevocable letters of credit established through the Reserve Bank during each month between January 1970 and December 1975. {: #subdebate-41-5-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Reserve Bank does not issue irrevocable letters of credit. Trading banks commonly establish such credits for their customers, generally importers. Approximately onethird of imports are handled under letter of credit facilities. > >In recent months letters of credit established by banks have been of the order of $230m per month. {:#subdebate-41-6} #### Aboriginal Affairs: Budget Allocations (Question No. 691) {: #subdebate-41-6-s0 .speaker-KSF} ##### Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 26 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What was the total sum allocated to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the 1 976-77 Budget. 1. What amounts have been allocated or promised to Aboriginal organisations and establishments in the Electoral Division of Sydney. 2. 3 ) When will any outstanding amounts be paid. {: #subdebate-41-6-s1 .speaker-EE6} ##### Mr Viner:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. $128,440,500. Subsequently an additional $25m was allocated to Aboriginal Affairs, Programs and Capital items. (2) {: type="1" start="3"} 0. All funds approved are expected to be released by 30 June 1977. {:#subdebate-41-7} #### Medibank (Question No. 705) {: #subdebate-41-7-s0 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many taxpayers elected (a) to pay the 2.5 per cent Medibank levy and (b) to join private medical and hospital benefits funds. 1. What are the respective figures for the Victorian municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick. {: #subdebate-41-7-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) Statistics of taxpayers who elected to pay the health insurance levy or to join private funds are not at present available. {:#subdebate-41-8} #### Public Transport Projects (Question No. 724) {: #subdebate-41-8-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 April 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has he undertaken to consider the funding of urban and non-urban public transport projects where they are properly supported by evaluations 1. ) Has a benefit/cost analysis been carried out by the Bureau of Transport Economics in conjunction with the Public Transport Commission of New South Wales on the GosfordNewcastle electrification project. 2. If so, were the results favourable. 3. Did the New South Wales Minister for Transport and Highways write to him in December 1976 regarding the prospect of Federal funding for this and other projects; if so, what has been his response. 4. What prospect is there of Federal two-thirds grant being made available for this work. {: #subdebate-41-8-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. and (3) The New South Wales Government submitted a proposal for electrification work between Gosford and Newcastle in 1975-76 estimated to cost $32.22m. An economic evaluation was provided and when reviewed by the Bureau of Transport Economics produced a benefit/cost ratio of 1 .03 at 7 per cent discounting and 0.79 when discounted at 10 per cent. No provision was made by the previous Government in its 1 975-76 Budget for new projects. 2. Yes. The provision of funds for the purposes of the Urban Public Transport Agreement will be determined in the overall budgetary context and I will advise the State Minister accordingly. 3. I am not prepared to speculate on the outcome of Budget deliberations at this dme. {:#subdebate-41-9} #### Primary Industry: Interest Payments (Question No. 726) {: #subdebate-41-9-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: >What interest payments have been made by the various primary industries which receive their advance payment finance from the Rural Credits section of the Reserve Bank in each of the last 3 calendar years. {: #subdebate-41-9-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Reserve Bank of Australia has advised that the information requested on interest payments by the various primary industries cannot be made available as the figures could disclose directly or indirectly the business of individual customers. {:#subdebate-41-10} #### National Wage Judgments (Question No. 735) {: #subdebate-41-10-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: >What has been the nett saving to Commonwealth revenue as a result of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration > >Commission's decisions to pass on less than the full percentage Consumer Price Index increase in national wage judgments since 1 July 1976. {: #subdebate-41-10-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Changes in wage rates directly affect the level of the Commonwealth's wages and salaries bill. Indirectly, through their effects on the general level of costs and prices, they also affect the Commonwealth's outlays on purchases of goods and services, indexed social security benefits and grants and advances to other sectors, including the States. Changes in wage rates also affect the revenue side of the Budget. The level of wages and salaries directly affects PA YE income tax receipts and price movements resulting from wage variations affect sales tax receipts. > >In all, it is estimated that a change in the general wage rate has a not dissimilar effect on total outlays and total receipts, so that the net change in the deficit is not large. But the various effects do not all occur at the same time; in the short run the effects on receipts would generally exceed the effects on outlays. > >The decisions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to pass on less than the full percentage Consumer Price Index increase in some of its recent national wage judgments have not, therefore, greatly altered the ongoing Commonwealth Budget outcome from what it would nave been had the Commission passed on the full Consumer Price Index increase in all its decisions. {:#subdebate-41-11} #### Governor-General: Overseas Visit (Question No. 739) {: #subdebate-41-11-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Between what dates will His Excellency the GovernorGeneral be absent from Australia. 1. What are the dates and nature of His Excellency's official engagements in London. 2. Is His Excellency stopping over in Tehran, Nice and Paris on his way to London and in Rome and Bangkok on his way back; if so, is he staying there at public expense. {: #subdebate-41-11-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Governor-General left Australia on 25 April 1 977 and is due to return on 1 5 June 1977. 1. The Governor-General will be attending the Silver Jubilee celebrations in London. 2. The Governor-General will take a period of mid-term leave while overseas. As is normal practice, this will be at official expense. {:#subdebate-41-12} #### Newspapers: Foreign Control (Question No. 741) {: #subdebate-41-12-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP am asked the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Have foreign interests been precluded from gaining control of daily newspapers for the last quarter of a century. 1. Did he confirm this policy on 1 April 1976. 2. Has consideration been given to extending this policy to bi-weekly or weekly newspapers in the light of the acquisition by **Mr Massimino** Del Prete of a controlling interest and by **Mr Renzo** di Piramo of a one-third interest in *La Fiamma* newspaper. {: #subdebate-41-12-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's questions are as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) I am not aware of any attempts over the last 25 years by foreign interests to gain control of daily newspapers in Australia which would have required action by the Government of the day. 1. and (3) In my statement of 1 April 1976 on policy towards foreign investment in Australia I indicated that foreign investment in certain basic sectors of the economy, including daily newspapers, would be restricted. Proposals for foreign investment in other categories of newspapers and magazines would be considered against this broad policy approach but taking account of particular circumstances in each case. {:#subdebate-41-13} #### Works of Art for Official Establishments (Question No. 750) {: #subdebate-41-13-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 April 1977: >What was the date of acquisition of each work of art lent to Government House and Admiralty House since his answers on 23 March and 27 April 1976 *(Hansard,* pages 928 and 1653). {: #subdebate-41-13-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The works of art lent to Government House since 27 April 1 976 were acquired as follows: {:#subdebate-41-14} #### Democratic Opposition (Question No. 766) {: #subdebate-41-14-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he say in answer to a question on 26 April 1977 that it has always been the view of his Government and of the Government Parties that democratic opposition must operate within the parliamentary forum in the proper democratic manner, that his Government does not believe that politics ought to be taken to the streets, as do quite a number of people on the Opposition benches of the House and as they practised on a previous occasion, and that the Government believes very strongly that the proper democratic forum- that is, the election of people at elections-is the way in which to see who ought to govern and the nature of the opposition itself. 1. If so, does this mean that persons who are not Members of Parliament are not entitled to seek to oppose or participate in political decision making other than on a triennial basis by being allowed to vote at elections. 2. If this is not the meaning of his statement, what actions are accepted by the Government as legitimate opposition to legislative or policy decisions with which a minority or majority of persons or organisations may disagree. {: #subdebate-41-14-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. No. 2. There are a vast number of ways- certainly too many to enumerate- in which Australians are entitled to express their opposition to legislative or policy decisions. The Government always welcomes reasoned and constructive criticism of any legislative or policy decision, and as a matter of course considers all written submissions received. {:#subdebate-41-15} #### Superphosphate Bounty (Question No. 769) {: #subdebate-41-15-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Government finalised consideration of the future of the superphosphate bounty. 1. ) If so, when will an announcement be made. 2. Will any announcement be accompanied by a statement of personal interest by Ministers participating in the decision. {: #subdebate-41-15-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Amendment Bill 1977 was introduced on 26 May 1 977. 2. No. {:#subdebate-41-16} #### Primary Industry Bodies: Advance Payments (Question No. 776) {: #subdebate-41-16-s0 .speaker-2E4} ##### Mr Lloyd: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which primary industry co-operatives and/or statutory marketing boards receive advances from the Rural Credits Section of the Reserve Bank to allow initial or first advance payments to farmers. 1. What sum has been advanced to each of them in each of the last 3 financial years. 2. What percentage of the estimated final price did the first advance or interim payment constitute. 3. With which industries is there an arrangement that the Reserve Bank advance will allow a certain percentage of the final price to be paid, and what is that percentage. 4. What is the generally agreed payment after delivery time scale with each of these industries. {: #subdebate-41-16-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Through its Rural Credits Department the Reserve Bank provides seasonal finance for various primary industry co-operatives and statutory marketing boards to assist in the marketing, processing or manufacture of primary produce. In view of its banker/customer relationships the Bank does not release information on its business with individual borrowers. 1. and (3) See answer to ( 1 ). 2. Each application for finance is carefully considered on proper banking criteria and the Bank has no arrangement with any industry whereby its advances will allow a certain percentage of the final price to be paid. 3. It is the practice of various co-operatives and statutory marketing boards to make an initial advance to growers shortly after delivery of the commodity but their payment of the balance is dependent on several factors, especially progress in marketing the product. {:#subdebate-41-17} #### Financial Corporations Act: Advisory Committee (Question No. 780) {: #subdebate-41-17-s0 .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr Hurford: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has an advisory committee been appointed under section 30 of the Financial Corporations Act. 1. If so, who are the members of the committee, and by which organisations are they employed. 2. Have there been any meetings of the committee during 1976 or 1977. {: #subdebate-41-17-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) There have been seven advisory committees appointed under Section 30 of the Financial Corporations Act, representing the following categories of corporations registered under the Act: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Permanent Building Societies; 1. Credit Co-operatives; 2. Authorised Money Market Dealers; 3. d ) Money market corporations; 4. ) Pastoral Finance Companies; 5. f) Finance Companies and General Financiers; 6. Retailers. 1. Members have been appointed to the Committees either in a personal capacity or as ex-officio representatives of relevant industry associations. The members are: {: type="a" start="1"} 0. a ) Permanent Building Societies Advisory Committee **Mr K.** M. Archer, Associate Director, Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies **Mr R.** *C* Fraser, General Manager, Greater Newcastle Permanent Building Society **Mr J.** V. Hodgkinson, Deputy Chairman, Queensland Permanent Building Society **Mr J.** B. C. Kirby, Managing Director, Civic Cooperative Permanent Building Society Limited **Mr R.** V. Morris, Managing Director, Mutual Permanent Building Society **Mr H.** W. Sorenson, General Manager, Perth Building Society Ex-Officio Members **Mr B.** L. Martin, President, Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, and Managing Director, Hindmarsh Building Society **Mr J.** D. Wills, Senior Vice President, Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies, and General Manager, St George Building Society Ltd **Mr .1.** V. Larkey, Executive Director, Australian Association of Permanent Building Societies {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Credit Co-Operative. **Mr G.** J. Boreham, Consultant to Australian Federation of Credit Union Leagues **Mr A.** J. Clark, Manager, W.A. Teachers' Credit Society Ltd **Mr J.** G. Conrad, General Manager, Victorian Credit Co-operative Association Ltd **Mr I.** S. M. Millburn, President, Association of Central Credit Unions **Mr R.** C. Petersen, Chairman of Directors, CBOA Credit Union Ltd **Mr L.** J. Robinson, General Manager, N.S.W. Credit Union League Ltd Ex-Officio Members **Mr C.** G. Jury, President, Australian Federation of Credit Union Leagues **Mr K.** Murray, Executive Officer, Australian Federation of Credit Union Leagues Ltd {: type="a" start="c"} 0. Authorised Money Market Dealers **Mr R.** D. Clark, Managing Director, United Discount Company of Australia Ltd **Mr D.** A. Livingstone, Managing Director, Trans City Discount Ltd **Mr M.** A. Neil, General Manager, Capel Court Securities Ltd Ex-Officio Member **Mr** *J.* H. Northcott, Chairman, The Council of Authorised Money Market Dealers, and General Manager, Short Term Acceptances Ltd {: type="a" start="d"} 0. Money Market Corporations **Mr D.** L. Elsum, Chief General Manager, Capel Court Corporation Ltd **Mr A.** C. Goode, Vice Chairman, Chase NBA Group Ltd **Mr D.** S. Clarke, Joint Managing Director, Hill Samuel Australia Ltd **Mr A.** L. Harman, Deputy Chairman, Hong Kong Finance Ltd **Mr J.** R. Thomas, General Manager, Elder's Finance and Investment Co. Ltd **Mr T.** W. J. Vear, Deputy General Manager, Partnership Pacific Ltd **Mr G.** A. T. Vine, General Manager, Euro-Pacific Finance Corp Ex-Officio Member **Mr I.** F. Stanwell, Chairman, Accepting Houses Association of Australia, and Manager for Australia, AMP Acceptances Ltd {: type="a" start="e"} 0. Pastoral Finance Companies **Mr C.** R. Faggoter, Assistant General Manager (Finance), Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Ltd **Mr N.** T. Kidd, Secretary and Financial Controller, Australian Mercantile Land and Finance Co. Ltd **Mr N.** R. Mcintosh, Director, Dalgety Australia Limited **Mr R.** H. Naismith, General Manager, Gippsland and Northern Co. Ltd Ex-Officio Members **Mr D.** C. P. Urquhart, President, The National Council of Wool Selling Brokers of Australia, and Managing Director Dennys Lascelles Ltd **Mr W.** A. Williams, Director, The National Council of Wool Selling Brokers of Australia {: type="a" start="f"} 0. Finance Companies and General Financiers **Mr G.** W. Bartlett, Managing Director, Walter E. Heller Australia Ltd **Mr N.** C. Burns, General Manager, Network Finance Limited **Mr J.** M. Durrie, Regional Finance Manager, General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Australia **Mr R.** F. Paley, Managing Director, Beneficial Finance Corporation Ltd **Mr H.** A. Tankard, Managing Director, United Dominions Corporation Ltd Ex-Officio Members **Mr K.** E. Hill, Federal Chairman, Australian Finance Conference, and General Manager, Esanda Limited **Mr M.** H. Ware, Deputy Federal Chairman, Australian Finance Conference, and General Manager, General Credits Ltd **Mr J.** 0. Llewellyn, Executive Director, Australian Finance Conference {: type="a" start="g"} 0. Retailers **Mr W.** A. Tope, Secretary, Myer Emporium Ltd **Mr P.** N. Walsh, Secretary, Grace Brothers Holdings Limited **Mr D.** P. Williams, Managing Director, John Martin and Co. Ltd Ex-Officio Members **Mr H.** P. Simons, President, Australian Retailers Association, and Joint General Manager, Woolworths Ltd **Mr J.** D. Martin, National Director, Australian Retailers Association {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Following initial joint meetings of the Committees on 26 March and 2 April 1976 the Committees have met on the following dates: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Permanent Building Societies Advisory Commit- tee-27 August 1976; 3 December 1976; 20 April 1977. 1. Credit Co-operatives Advisory Committee- 27 September 1976. 2. Authorised Money Market Dealers Advisory Com- mittee-28 September 1976; 18 April 1977. 3. Money Market Corporations Advisory Commit- tee-27 August 1976; 5 May 1977. 4. Pastoral Finance Companies Advisory Commit- tee-24 September 1976. 5. Finance Companies and General Financiers Advisory Committee-27 September 1 976; 4 May 1 977. 6. ) Retailers Advisory Committee-29 October 1 976. {:#subdebate-41-18} #### Departments of Productivity and Finance: Staff (Question No. 795) {: #subdebate-41-18-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP am asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 3 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has a total of $ 15m been provided for the salaries of officers in the Departments of Productivity and Finance between the creation of those departments on 8 November 1 976 and 7 December 1976 respectively and 30 June 1 977. 1. What will be the savings in the appropriations for those periods for departments formerly employing those officers. 2. What will be the net cost of salaries for the full establishment of officers in the 2 departments in a full financial year. {: #subdebate-41-18-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1976-77 included appropriations totalling $6,888,900 and $8,571,000 for the salaries and allowances of officers of the Depanment of Finance and the Department of Productivity respectively. The Department of Finance appropriations included an amount of $401,000 for the Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office, and the Department of Productivity appropriations included an amount of $22 1 ,000 for the Patents, Trademarks and Design Office; these amounts were in supplementation of the original appropriations which remained legally available following the placement of the two Offices with the newly-created departments. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The expected savings in the administrative salaries appropriations of the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Industry and Commerce, as shown in the Information Paper on Savings tabled in Parliament on 21 April 1977, are $6,951,000 and $7,320,000 respectively. The establishment of the Department of Productivity also resulted in expected savings of $240,000 and $787,000 in the appro.priations of the Department of Transport and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations respectively as a consequence of the transfer of staff from those departments to the Department of Productivity; but these savings were offset against additional funds required by those departments during the current financial year. 1. Up-to-date estimates of the full year costs of salaries of officers of the Departments of Finance and Productivity will be shown in the Budget papers to be presented in August 1977. {:#subdebate-41-19} #### Qantas Airways Limited (Question No. 798) {: #subdebate-41-19-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 May 1977: >What cabotage or fifth freedom entitlements has Qantas received in other countries in return for any Australian concessions to international airlines involving entitlements to Australian domestic passenger traffic. {: #subdebate-41-19-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >International airlines do not have entitlements to Australian domestic passenger traffic. Incident at Johannesburg Airport (Question No. 802) {: #subdebate-41-19-s2 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 May 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has he had inquiries made into the reported incident on about 15 April 19/7 at Johannesburg Airport concerning a Qantas 747 jet and a South African Airways Airbus. 1. If so, what was the result of those inquiries. {: #subdebate-41-19-s3 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes. Enquiries are being conducted by the Air Safety Investigation Branch of my Department, and Qantas is participating in the examination of the occurrence. 1. In accordance with normal procedures applying to international operations the responsibility for the investigation of the occurrence rests with the Republic of South Africa. Liaison is being maintained with the appropriate authority. The investigation is not yet completed. Governor-General: Purchase of a Car (Question No. 806) {: #subdebate-41-19-s4 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 4 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has a new Bentley car from Great Britain been ordered for the Governor-General. 1. ) If so, is delivery to be made shortly; if so, on what date. 2. Will he provide a full description of this car, including its appointments. 3. What would be the cost of such a car to an ordinary resident of Australia. {: #subdebate-41-19-s5 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No new car has been ordered for the GovernorGeneral by the Government. 1. , (3) and (4) Not applicable. PA YE Income Tax (Question No. 820) {: #subdebate-41-19-s6 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Was the net PA YE income tax collected from individuals $7,019.7min 1975-76. 1. ) Did the Budget Speech forecast an increase of this sum to $8,775m for 1976-77. 2. If so, is this an increase of $ 1 ,755.3m or 25 per cent. 3. What is the new estimate for net PA YE income tax to be collected from individuals in 1976-77. {: #subdebate-41-19-s7 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. 2. Yes. However, the net PA YE figures are not directly comparable in that the $l,755.3m was arrived at after allowing for a reduction in PA YE refunds of $242.7m an estimated gain of $428m resulting from the abolition of rebates for dependent children and students and the estimated $208rn yield from the health insurance levy. 3. The 1976-77 net PAYE estimate of $8,775m is unchanged. {:#subdebate-41-20} #### Holsworthy Housing Project (Question No. 835) {: #subdebate-41-20-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice on, 5 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What sum was spent by the previous Government on the Holsworthy area housing project in 1973-74 and 1974-75. 1. What sum was allocated in the Budgets of 1975-76 and 1 976-77 for the Holsworthy project. 2. How much of the allocation in 1975-76 was spent in that year. 3. Was a lesser amount spent as a result of his Department's or the Government's actions. 4. What works took place in the Holsworthy area in the years 1973, 1974 and 1975. 5. What works have taken place in 1976. 6. How many blocks of land have now been developed. 7. What is the stage of development of all blocks of land on the site. 8. When will blocks of land be leased or sold to the public. 9. When will the project be completed. {: #subdebate-41-20-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) In 1974, the former Cities Commission was authorised to undertake a small urban investigatory land subdivision project at Holsworthy- the authority did riot extend to housing development. In 1973-74 an amount of $16,902 was spent on preliminary investigation, and in 1974-75 an amount of $69 1 ,929 on land development works. 1. The Budget allocation for the project in 1975-76 was $4,572,000 and in 1976-77 is$140,000. 2. Expenditure for the financial year 1975-76 was $2,579,465, plus a carry over amount of $428,000 which was available to the Cities Commission from 1 974-75. 3. The allocation in 1975-76 provided for the completion of land servicing and, in anticipation of formal Government approval, for the commencement of erection of houses and a local centre. Because of the inability of the Honourable Member-then Minister for Urban and Regional Development- to obtain approval for the extension of the project to include housing, and to resolve a union matter relating to contract or day labour construction of the sewerage system, a considerable portion of the allocation had not been committed at the change of Government in December 1975. In the light of the urgent need to restrain Government expenditure, probable difficulties (because of the abovementioned delays) in meeting the original expenditure targets for the project and indications that its financial viability was in doubt (due to the severe cost inflation- market recession situation which had developed since 1973) the allocation of funds available for expenditure in the financial year was reduced. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. At the beginning of 1973, investigations were commenced to test the feasibility of the large scale town development on Army occupied land at Holsworthy favoured (without the benefit of such investigation) by the Honourable Member- in his aforementioned role. lt was quickly established that the cost of relocating the Army away from Holsworthy- to permit development at the scale contemplated- would be insupportable. It was further established that, although the Army could relinquish a lesser area for urban development, portion of it was subject to the presence of unexploded shells; and later exhaustive investigation revealed that soil conditions at Holsworthy precluded clearance by presently available methods. Nevertheless, a plan was prepared for an urban district on the much smaller area then remaining available and not subject to pollution by shells. The inability of the Honourable Member (then the responsible Minister) to reach an inter-government agreement with New South Wales until the end of 1974 (and then only in principle) precluded full scale implementation of the urban district proposals, but in 1974 the small land subdivision was commenced using the limited powers available to the Commonwealth. In 1974, in addition to the commencement of the subdivision project, work was commenced on the relocation of an Army airfield, in anticipation of the urban district project going ahead. In 1975, land servicing continued on the subdivision project and on the relocation of the airfield. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. In 1976, for the reasons given in (4) above, work has been confined to the completion of land servicing contract commitments which existed at December 1 975. 1. 7 ) No blocks of land have been fully developed. 2. Land development of the subdivision project has reached the stage where roadworks, drainage, water supply installation and the majority of earth shaping and landscaping works have been completed. The works remaining to complete the project comprise sewerage installations, some landscaping, and power and telephone installations. 3. and ( 10) No decisions have yet been taken. The future use of this and adjoining Commonwealth land is the subject of review. {:#subdebate-41-21} #### Macarthur Growth Centre (Question No. 836) {: #subdebate-41-21-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development upon notice on 5 May 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the total amount of funds allocated by the Federal Government to the New South Wales Government for expenditure in the Macarthur Growth Centre in 1 976-77. 1. What was the size of the bid for the Centre at the time original or first estimates were forwarded to the Treasury in December 1975. 2. How many revisions of the original bids did the Treasury or the Government require. 3. Did the original bid amount to $55 million; if not, to what sum. 4. Was this bid reduced to $29 million and then to $13 million in pre-Budget Cabinet negotiations; if not, what was the original bid reduced to on each occasion prior to final Cabinet consideration. 5. What was the total value of firm contractual commitments entered into by the Macarthur Development Board (Sydney South West Sector Development Board) prior to 30 June 1976. 6. What were the details of the works program submitted to the Ministerial Conference on 25 November 1976 and, in particular, what were the specific proposals for the (a) Regional Centre, (b) Minto Industrial Estate, (c) Minto District Centre, (d) Ingleburn Industrial Estate, (e) Camden Park Estate and (0 major roadworks in the area. 7. 8 ) If any of these specific projects received no funds in the suggested Works Program, what was the reason for its omission. 8. How many jobs is it estimated would be created if the suggested works program was implemented. 9. How many jobs is it estimated would have been created if the Federal Government had appropriated sufficient funds to meet existing contractual obligations. 10. How many jobs is it estimated would have been created if the various bids referred to in parts (2) and (3) had been agreed to. 11. As a result of the Federal Government's reduced financial commitment to Macarthur, how many landholders will suffer financial hardship because of the slowdown in the rate of land acquisition. 12. 13) Is the development of industrial estates for major private sector development proposals at Ingleburn, Minto and Macquarie being delayed because of insufficient funds for drainage works. 13. Are future key development projects, in particular the technical college, the hospital extensions, and the Campbelltown regional shopping centres, in doubt due to the Federal Government's failure to make sufficient funds available to meet existing contractual commitments. 14. As a result of the Federal Government's reduced financial commitment to Macarthur (a) has the financial ability of major private sector housing developments been jeopardised and, in particular, are the Ambervale development and the Eaglevale development suffering because of a slow-down in the provision of infrastructure services, transport facilities and road systems, and (b) has the New South Wales Housing Commission development at Claymore been delayed or impeded because of a slow-down in the provision of infrastructure services and road systems. {: #subdebate-41-21-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) $5 million. 1. to (5) It is not customary to disclose initial estimates prepared by the Commonwealth Departments for consideration by the Government, nor bids submitted by State Development Authorities as a basis for negotiating financial programs. I am able to confirm that a financial program of 15.7 million was approved for Macarthur in 1 976-77 on the basis of recommendations submitted by the Macarthur Board. This approval was given on the understanding that the Commonwealth would contribute a maximum of $5 million towards program costs in the current financial year. In February 1977 the State Government announced a contribution of $4.5 million towards the program. 2. Advice prepared by the Macarthur Development Board indicated that its firm contractual commitments at 30 June 1976 were $5.2m. 3. The $15,736,000 Approved Program for Macarthur for 1976-77 included the following Works Program. (The Approved Works Program did not include any requirements for Camden Park Estate). {: type="1" start="8"} 0. The Commonwealth contribution of $5m in 1976-77 is not tied to any specific works project included in the Macarthur development program. Consistent with its responsibility as a project manager, the Development Board may apply Commonwealth and State funds in accordance with its own priorities and commitments. 1. to (15) The Bathurst/Orange and Macarthur Development programs are State Government initiatives. At the time the Commonwealth made its decision to allocate funds for these centres in 1976/77, there was no legal obligation to provide any such assistance. Certainly at no time did the Commonwealth agree to fund the contractual obligations of Development Authorities established by the New South Wales Government to manage these projects. Funds provided for Macarthur in the current financial year represent an assessment of the priority which could be accorded the centre in a year of exceptional fiscal restraint. In this context, the allocation of $5 million for Macarthur is not tied to specific construction projects or development targets programmed by the Macarthur Development Board for 1976-77. The Development Board has been given maximum discretion in the application of funds provided for Macarthur by the Commonwealth in the current year. If Works Program targets for 1976-77 are affected by financial constraints, the State Government has the capacity and flexibility under new revenue sharing arrangements to increase the level of its own investment. Whether or not this option is exercised will, of course, depend on the priority the New South Wales Government chooses to give Macarthur. In regard to the land acquisition program in 1976-77 over $2. 5m will be spent on the acquisition of land from those landowners in the extreme and moderate hardship categories. {:#subdebate-41-22} #### S2E Tracker Aircraft (Question No. 856) {: #subdebate-41-22-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 May 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the repair work presently underway on 2 S2E Tracker aircraft intended to restore them to the standard of operational capability they possessed before the lire at the Naval Air Station, Nowra; if not, what is the objective of this work. 1. Are any modifications to the S2E airframe equipment or systems envisaged as pan of this repair program; if so, what are the modifications. 2. 3 ) What is the estimated cost of this repair program. 3. What is the nature of work involved in the current overhaul of 6 S2G Tracker aircraft. 4. 5 ) What is the estimated cost of this overhaul program. 5. What is the estimated cost of the overhaul of a further 5 S2G aircraft due to begin about April 1978. 6. What are the numbers of personnel, by rank and mustering, involved in training to operate and maintain the S2G Tracker aircraft when they enter service. 7. What is the estimated wages cost to the RAN of these personnel. 8. What is the estimated cost of the training program necessary to bring the S2G Tracker into service with the RAN. {: #subdebate-41-22-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Repair work on two of the S2E's recovered from the NAS Nowra fire was completed on 5 April 1977 and 21 April 1977 respectively. This repair work restored them fully to the operational capability they possessed before the fire. Both these aircraft and the S2E which was undergoing progressive aircraft re-work at the time of the fire embarked in HMAS *Melbourne* on 28 April 1977. 1. There were no modifications to the S2E airframe equipment or systems incorporated in the repair program. 2. The estimated cost of repairing the two S2E's was $A80,000 each, plus the spares required. The final cost has yet to be determined but is now estimated at $A82,000 for the first aircraft and $A75,000 for the second. 3. The S2G aircraft are to be re-worked to meet the standards normally required by the Royal Australian Navy. The work includes treatment for corrosion, minor repair to wiring, installation of minor modifications to bring all aircraft to a common standard and painting. 4. ) The cost of an S2G progressive aircraft re-work (PAR) is expected to be substantially the same as for the S2E, that is about 6000 man hours (or SA85.800 at the current rate, not including spares used ). The costs for six aircraft therefore are estimated to be of the order of $A0.5m. Tracker aircraft are re-worked every 30 months under the RAN Maintenance Policy and provision had already been made in the 1977/78 estimates for 5 in number S2E aircraft to undergo PAR at Hawker de Havilland. It is now intended to undertake similar work on 7 in number S2G aircraft instead; thus the additional cost in 1977/78 over and above that already estimated is 1 2 000 man hours or $ 1 7 1 ,000. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. The re-work cost of a further five S2G aircraft is expected to be the same as that described earlier, except for any increases in the agreed Hawker de Havilland manhour rate. However, subsequent to FY 1977/78 the frequency of re-work will revert to that already provided for the S2E in the 1 977/82 five year program. 1. The following personnel, listed by numbers and trade, will form the nucleus of S2G trained operators and main takers: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Two Sub-Lieutenant Observers for AQA-7 (sonar computer-recorder system) operator training with the 1. Two Petty Officers Air Technical Communications (POATC), one Able Seaman Air Technical Communications (ABATC) and one Senior Naval Systems Technical Officer Grade One (SNSTOl) for AQA-7 and ARR-75 (sonobuoy receivers) maintenance training with the USN. 2. Four Petty Officers Air Technical Weapons Electrical (POATWL) for ASN 50/73 (attitude, heading reference system) maintenance training with the RAAF. 3. d ) Two Petty Officers Air Technical Weapons Ordnance (POATWO), and two Petty Officers Air Technical Airframes ( POATA) for AERO- 1 B (retro-ejector system) maintenance training with the RAAF. This nucleus of S2G trained personnel will then be responsible for further operator and maintainer training, all of which will be conducted in Australia. This further training will be an ongoing commitment during the operational life of the S2G. The personnel listed below, by rank and trade, represent the first group to be trained as pan of the ongoing commitment: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Fifteen Sub-Lieutenant Observers as AQA-7 operators. 1. Two Chief Petty Officers, seven Petty Officers, six Leading Seamen and 1 1 Able Seamen Air Technical Communications, as AQA-7 and ARR-75 maintainers. 2. Two Chief Petty Officers, six Petty Officers, six Leading Seamen and 10 Able Seamen Air Technical Weapons Electrical as ASN 50/73 maintainers. 3. Two Chief Petty Officers, three Petty Officers, four Leading Seamen, eight Able Seamen Air Technical Weapons Ordnance and six Chief Petty Officers, 10 Petty Officers, six Leading Seamen and 15 Able Seamen Air Technical Airframes as AERO- IB maintainers. All personnel listed above for S2G training will come from S2E squadrons and workshops. No additional personnel are involved. {: type="1" start="8"} 0. As all the personnel involved in S2G training are currently employed in S2E associated billets, no additional wage costs will be incurred by the RAN. The table below, however, shows the cost of wages expected to be paid to the personnel while they are undergoing training. {: type="1" start="9"} 0. Apart from the initial AQA-7 and ARR-75 operator and maintainer courses which will be conducted in the USA all other training, initial and ongoing, will be undertaken by the RAN or RAAF. Until the formal letter of offer is received the cost of courses in the USA will not be known, but $US50,000 have been allocated in the project for this purpose. {:#subdebate-41-23} #### Child Abduction (Question No. 862) {: #subdebate-41-23-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1977: >With abductions of Australian children overseas running at 200 annually, will he advise the results of his undertaking to carry out an urgent investigation with a view to preventing abductions and the anguish caused to Australian parents. {: #subdebate-41-23-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The answer to the honourable member's question was provided in my reply to the honourable member's question without notice which appears on page 1912 of the daily *Hansard* of 26 May, 1 977. 1 should add that section 69 of the Family Law Act 1975 provides for the transmission of Australian custody and access orders to prescribed foreign countries. Negotiations are at present under way with some thirty countries with a view to seeking arrangements whereby Australian custody orders may be enforced in those countries, pursuant to section 69 of the Family Law Act. {:#subdebate-41-24} #### Australian National Line (Question No. 864) {: #subdebate-41-24-s0 .speaker-L0J} ##### Mr Sainsbury:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the Australian National Line having any bulk loading ships built in Germany at the present time. 1. ) If so, how many, and what is their carrying capacity. 2. ) What profit or loss is envisaged in the future operation of such ships. 3. Is it likely that such ships will be used in Australia's trade with Japan. 4. Would our trading relations with Japan be assisted by having this type of ship built in Japan in the future. {: #subdebate-41-24-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. ) One vessel is being built in Germany with a capacity of 1 38 000 tonnes deadweight. 2. It is not the practice to divulge confidential information concerning the line's commercial operations. 3. Yes. 4. It is necessary to take commercial considerations into account in making decisions on orders for new tonnage. For example, no Japanese yard was able to deliver the vessel currently under construction in Germany by the specified delivery date. There are no proposals under consideration for the construction of further large bulk carriers for Australian National Line use in the Japan ore trade. {:#subdebate-41-25} #### Water Resource Development (Question No. 871) {: #subdebate-41-25-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP am asked the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 24 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) When did the Federal Government ask the State governments to submit work programs for water resource development for the ensuing S to 10 years as a basis of selection of projects for financial assistance. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. What programs were submitted and when. {: #subdebate-41-25-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 14 February 1975. 1. Programs were received from only two States: South Australia and Victoria on 1 1 June 1975 and 28 April 1976 respectively. {:#subdebate-41-26} #### Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Regulations: Claims (Question No. 872) {: #subdebate-41-26-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many persons who have rendered assistance to police, sheriffs and customs officers have made claims in each year under Statutory Rules 1971, No. 112, the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Regulations. 1. 2 ) How many claims have been accepted. 2. 3 ) What amounts have been paid. {: #subdebate-41-26-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation has advised me that, according to the records kept in his office, no such claims have been made. Inquiry into Land Development and Housing Costs (Question No. 876) {: #subdebate-41-26-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP am asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 24 May 1977: >What progress has been made with the proposal to conduct an inquiry into land development and housing costs in Australia since the proposal was discussed at the meeting of Housing Ministers on 29 April 1 977. {: #subdebate-41-26-s3 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The proposal for a Housing Costs Inquiry was, as the honourable member mentioned, discussed at the Housing Ministers' Conference on 29 April 1977. The proposal was unanimously endorsed by the State Housing Ministers and Terms of Reference and the broad structure of the committee were agreed upon. > >Following the agreement, State Housing Ministers suggested names of people they considered to be suitable for appointment to the Inquiry. These names, together with those proposed by other sources have been under active consideration. When a formal decision is made, the Premiers will be advised and a detailed public announcement about the Inquiry will be made. Royal Commission on Petroleum (Question No. 879) {: #subdebate-41-26-s4 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will the report of the interdepartmental committee, which was established to examine the 4th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum, be tabled in Parliament; if so, when. 1. ) Did he state in answer to question No. 1415 *(Hansard,* 3 December 1976. page 3283) that he expected to place a submission on the 4th Report of the Royal Commission and the IAC 's report before Cabinet early in the new year. 2. If so, did he in fact present this submission; if so, what what was its fate; if not, why not. {: #subdebate-41-26-s5 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. Yes. 2. In my statement of 31 May 1977, I announced the Government's policy on the major recommendations of the 4th Report of the Royal Commission on Petroleum. {:#subdebate-41-27} #### African Nation States (Question No. 881) {: #subdebate-41-27-s0 .speaker-JLN} ##### Mr Abel: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the names of all of the individual nation States on the African continent. 1. What is the estimated population of each country. 2. What is the name of the (a) Head of State and (b) effective political leader in each country. 3. What is the estimated (a) black and (b) non-black population of each country. 4. Which of these countries currently have (a) a President and/or Prime Minister and (b) governments that are in power having been freely elected in open, adult franchise elections where any of the country's citizens were eligible to be candidates with the eligibility being similar to that in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. 5. Into which of the following classifications would the remaining non-democratic nations fall: (a) military junta, (b) non-military dictatorship, (c) limited democratic with the franchise being restricted to a limited number of electors of (d) others. 6. What was the date on which each Government came to power. {: #subdebate-41-27-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (I), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (7) The information sought by the honourable member is contained in freely available publications including, for example, those entitled 'Africa South of the Sahara 1976-77' and 'The Middle East and North Africa 1976-77'. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. The Government does not believe that it would be appropriate or constructive to seek selectively to categorise independent sovereign states in Africa under the classifications suggested by the honourable member. {:#subdebate-41-28} #### Charter Flights (Question No. 885) {: #subdebate-41-28-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many charter flights were allowed into Australia during (a) 1976 and (b) 1977 to date. 1. What airlines were granted charter flight rights. 2. How many passengers were carried on these flights. 3. What is the amount of foreign currency spent in Australia by this type of visitor. {: #subdebate-41-28-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (I have assumed from the general tenor of the honourable member's question that it refers to charter flights from overseas bringing in tourists as distinct from nights returning with persons normally resident in Australia, and the question has been answered accordingly). {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The Australian Tourism Commission estimates that on average, the American tourist in Australia spends some $500 during his or her stay. It should be borne in mind that of the 75 000 visitors to Australia from the United States in 1976 the vast majority were carried by scheduled services. {:#subdebate-41-29} #### Charter Flights (Question No. 886) {: #subdebate-41-29-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 May 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Have any airlines made applications for charter flights to Australia from Japan since 1 January 1 976. 1. If so, (a) how many applications were granted, (b) what was the reason for the rejection of any unsuccessful applications and (c) what was the name of the airline in each case. {: #subdebate-41-29-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. Not applicable. {:#subdebate-41-30} #### Air Fares (Question No. 887) {: #subdebate-41-30-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 May 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the total single and return fare charged by Qantas for (a) first and (b) economy class air travel from Sydney to and to Sydney from the following cities: (i) Auckland, (ii) Honolulu, (iii) San Francisco, (iv) Singapore, (v) Rome, (vi) London, (vii) Manila, (viii) Hong Kong and (ix) Tokyo. 1. What is the cost per kilometre for each of the trips referred to in pan (1 ). {: #subdebate-41-30-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The first and economy single fares to the cities, quoted in Australian dollars, are: The return fare is twice the single fare, thus the cost in cents per kilometre remains unchanged. Fares from these points to Sydney are not in every case the same as the reciprocal fares from Sydney. Some are higher and some are lower. This is due to the differences in currency values between Australia and the other countries concerned. It should be noted that the following return promotional fares, quoted in Australian dollars, are also available: {:#subdebate-41-31} #### Women's Refuge and Crisis Centres (Question No. 889) {: #subdebate-41-31-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many women's refuge and crisis centres are in existence in each State and Territory. 1. 2 ) What is the location of each centre. 2. How many women and children were given shelter at each of the centres in the last 12 months. 3. What is the amount of (a) State and (b) Commonwealth Government funds provided to each centre. 4. Are all centres operated predominantly by voluntary labour. 5. Will the Minister give urgent and sympathetic consideration to the full and continuing funding of these centres. {: #subdebate-41-31-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. to (6) The existing program under which women's refuges are funded by the Commonwealth, under the Community Health Program, is a Commonwealth/State agreementwhich is the responsibility of the Minister for Health. The question asked by the honourable member should be directed to the Minister for Health. {:#subdebate-41-32} #### Child Care Centres (Question No. 890) {: #subdebate-41-32-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister received representations from the Australian Federation of Child Care Associations regarding massive vacancies in child care centres in Australia. 1. Does this Association represent the commercial day care sector. 2. Is the claim of the Association, that a 30 per cent vacancy rate exists, correct. 3. Is the main reason for the plight of the commercial sector an increasing duplication of these services by the establishment of Government centres and Government funded family day care programs. 4. ) If so, what action is being taken by the Government to rationalise commercial and Government programs. {: #subdebate-41-32-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2)1 have received representations from the Australian Federation of Child Care Associations which is an association representing the commercial day care sector, recording details of a survey of vacancies in child care centres in the commercial day care sector. 1. I am unable to determine whether the results of the survey conducted by the Federation are correct; in those centres from which information was obtained, the indications were that a vacancy rate of 30 per cent existed. 2. and (5) Approvals for new services under the Children 's Services Program are given against the Government 's policy of ensuring that Commonwealth funds are allocated to provide genuine child care for those in need. The majority of services that have been established by the Government, were approved prior to 1976. There is some indication that there has been a fall in demand for services provided by these centres. Government policy is to encourage the development of flexible multi-purpose services, capable of meeting changing demands and capable of helping the mother in the workforce and the mother at home. All proposals for new services are examined carefully, taking into account both demand and supply data for the particular area. Answer to Question on Notice (Question No. 892) {: #subdebate-41-32-s2 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 149, which was first placed on notice as question No. 20 IS on 16 February 1977. {: #subdebate-41-32-s3 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >Question No. 149 has now been answered. {:#subdebate-41-33} #### Seabed Boundaries: Timor Sea (Question No. 893) {: #subdebate-41-33-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Was an agreement between Australia and Indonesia covering seabed boundaries eastward of 9" 28"Sx 127° 561; and westward of 10° 37"S x 125° 41 13 signed on 9 October 1972. 1. Did Article 3 of this agreement refer to the possibility of a further delimitation agreement or agreements being concluded between governments exercising sovereign rights with respect to the exploration of the seabed and the exploitation of its natural resources in the area of the Timor Sea, which might necessitate adjustment of the boundary lines agreed to on 9 October 1972. 2. ) Have there been any discussions between the Governments of Australia and Indonesia regarding delimitation of a seabed boundary between 9° 28 ^ x 127° 56 Ti and 10° 37 5 x 125° 4 1 "E since 9 October 1972. If so, on what occasions, at what localities, and who represented Australia on each occasion. 3. Have any discussions on a seabed boundary between Australia and East Timor taken place. If so, (a) with which nation or nations did they take place, (b) on what occasions and at what localities did they take place and (c) who represented Australia on each occasion. 4. Does he anticipate an early conclusion (a) to discussions with Indonesia for completion of our seabed boundary with that country and (b) to discussion for a seabed boundary with East Timor. 5. If no discussions have been held on a seabed boundary with (a) Indonesia, in areas not covered by the 1971 agreement, and (b) East Timor, what is the status of our seabed boundaries in this region with particular reference to oil and gas exploration and exploitation. 6. Has an exploration permit been given to Pelsart Oil NL which covers an area between the median line and the Timor Trench claimed by the Portuguese Government; if so, does this constitute Australian recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor and /or ad acent waters. {: #subdebate-41-33-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Yes, although it should be noted that the westward section begins at 10° 28 'S x 126° 00 "E. 1. ) Article 3 of the 1972 Agreement reads as follows: Article 3 "The lines between points AI5 and A16 and between points A 1 7 and A 1 8 referred to in Article 1 and Article 2 respectively, indicate the direction of those portions of the boundary. In the event of any further delimitation agreement or agreements being concluded between governments exercising sovereign rights with respect to the exploration of the seabed and the exploitation of its natural resources in the area of the Timor Sea, the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia shall consult each other with a view to agreeing on such adjustment or adjustments, if any, as may be necessary in those portions of the boundary lines between points Al 5 and A 1 6, and between points A 1 7 and A 1 8 ". {: type="1" start="3"} 0. No negotiations on a seabed boundary in this area have been held with the Government of Indonesia. 1. At various times between 1971 and 1973 Portugal and Australia discussed the possibility of commencing negotiations to delimit a seabed boundary between Australia and East Timor but no agreement was reached. In November 1973 the Portuguese Government indicated that they did not wish to begin negotiations until after the Law of the Sea Conference, the first session of which was due to open in Caracas in June 1974. These initial exploratory discussions were conducted in Lisbon and Canberra between officials of the Portuguese and Australian Ministries of Foreign Affairs through their respective Embassies in each capital. 2. (a) Australia and Indonesia have already established a seabed boundary between their two countries. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. No negotiations on the seabed boundary between East Timor and Australia are currently under consideration. 3. The status of the seabed boundary between East Timor and Australia is governed by the 1938 Convention on the Continental Shelf. Under this Convention Australia has jurisdiction for the purpose of exploration and exploitation of the natural resources (including petroleum) of the seabed to the outer edge of its continental margin. The basis for Australian jurisdiction was explained by the then Minister for External Affairs in the House of Representatives on 30 October 1970. 4. The area in question is within Australian jurisdiction and is within the area adjacent to Western Australia, as defined in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, and was included in permits issued under the Act in 1969. After relinquishment in 1975, the area was advertised in 1976 in accordance with normal procedures under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. Pelsart Oil NX. applied for a permit and the Western Australian Designated Authority, with the concurrence of the Commonwealth, has informed the company that he is prepared to grant a permit. {:#subdebate-41-34} #### Naval Vessels: Indian Ocean and Suez Canal (Question No. 894) {: #subdebate-41-34-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is he able to provide figures on a monthly basis of the various classes of Soviet naval ships which have operated in the Indian Ocean during the period 1 July 1 976 to date. 1. Can he also indicate the extent of Soviet naval use of the Suez Canal in this period. 2. What is the estimate of ship days spent in the Indian Ocean during 1 976 and 1 977 to date by naval vessels of (a) the United Soviet Socialist Republic, (b) the United States of America, (c) the United Kingdom, (d) France and (e) other nations. {: #subdebate-41-34-s1 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Monthly class/day figures of Soviet naval and naval associated ships which operated in the Indian Ocean during the period 1 July 1976 to 30 April 1977 are shown in the following table: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. There have been 25 transits of the Suez Canal by a total of 20 Soviet naval and naval-associated vessels during the period 1 July 1976 to 30 April 1977. 1. ) Indian Ocean ship day figures are shown in the following table. Information on countries other than the U.S.S.R., U.S.A., U.K. and France is not available. {:#subdebate-41-35} #### Pine Gap Facility (Question No. 904) {: #subdebate-41-35-s0 .speaker-L6X} ##### Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: >Is there any evidence that Central Intelligence Agency activities at Pine Gap include the operation of a super bug that is able to monitor any telephone or telex message into or out of Australia. {: #subdebate-41-35-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -(Acting Prime Minister)-The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >In answer to the honourable member's question I refer him to the statement on this subject given by the Prime Minister on 24 May in the House of Representatives which may be found in the House of Representatives *Hansard,* pages 1695-1696, of that date. {:#subdebate-41-36} #### Warrantees for Pensioners (Question No. 907) {: #subdebate-41-36-s0 .speaker-MH4} ##### Mr Jull: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the guidelines set down by the Department to enable private persons to be warrantees for persons receiving pensions from the Department of Social Security. 1. Are the credentials of the warrantees checked by the Department prior to that right being given. 2. How often are the warrantees reviewed by the Department. 3. For how many persons receiving Social Security pensions do **Dr Noel** Hall and **Mrs Noel** Hall of 129 Windemere Road, Ascot, Queensland, act as warrantees. 4. For how many persons receiving Social Security pensions does **Mr Bashir** Mohammed Deen of 246 Randall Road, Wynnum West, Queensland, act as warrantee. 5. When was the last review undertaken by the Department on the number of pensions falling under the jurisdiction of the persons referred to in parts (4) and (5 ). 6. On what basis do these persons claim the right to act as warrantees. {: #subdebate-41-36-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Section 40 ( 1 ) of the Social Services Act provides that a pension shall be paid to the pensioner or, on behalf of the pensioner, to such other person as the pensioner appoints. Therefore if a pensioner appoints a warrantee, the Department of Social Security has no discretion in the matter, and no guidelines are required. Section 43 of the Social Services Act provides that where the Director-General is satisfied that, for any reason, it is desirable that payment of the whole or a portion of a pension should be made to another person, institution or authority on behalf of the pensioner, the Director-General may authorise payment accordingly. Such authorisations are rare, occurring usually only where a person is mentally or physically incapable of appointing a warrantee, or where he is, for some valid reason, unable to manage his financial affairs. In such cases, the Depanment authorises payment to a responsible adult person, preferably a relative. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The credentials of the proposed warrantee are not examined if the appointment is made by the pensioner. Where the appointment is not made by the pensioner, the Depanment of Social Security satisfies itself that the proposed warrantee has taken and will continue to take an interest in the welfare of the pensioner. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Warrants authorised by the pensioner continue for the period specified by him and may be revoked by him at anytime. Warrants authorised by the Director-General may continue indefinitely. The Depanment of Social Security reviews warrants if at any time there is reason to believe that the warrant is being abused. 1. , (5), (6) and (7) The information required is not readily available. CIA: Kerr-McGee Australia Ltd (Question No. 910) {: #subdebate-41-36-s2 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Can he say whether the firm Kerr-McGee Australia Ltd operates in Australia. 1. If so, is its New South Wales Agent a firm called Quadland Pty Ltd of 67 Castlereagh Street, Sydney. 2. Is he able to say if Kerr-McGee Australia Ltd's directors in 1976 were Messrs Dean Anderson McGee, Frank Criner Love, Lynn Adams, David Albin Watkins, George C. Hardin (Jnr) and Harold J. Kleen all of Oklahoma, U.S.A. 3. Is he also able to say if George C. Hardin (Jnr) was the same George C. Hardin, a vice president of Ashland Oil Inc., who admitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 1975 that he was involved in irregular contributions to Congressional campaigns out of his own funds but was later reimbursed by the Corporation. {: #subdebate-41-36-s3 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -(Acting Prime Minister)- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. I do not propose to comment publicly upon matters concerning the domestic affairs of another country. CIA: Conduct of Foreign Companies in Australia (Question No.911) {: #subdebate-41-36-s4 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he tell me in answer to question No. 787 *(Hansard,* 4 June 1976, page 3127) that companies in Australia, both domestic and foreign, are required to operate within the framework of Australian law. 1. If so, is he able to specify those provisions within the framework of Australian law which govern the conduct of foreign based companies in Australia who have acted or may act in collaboration with or as agents for the United States Central Intelligence Agency. {: #subdebate-41-36-s5 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -(Acting Prime Minister)- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Australian law applies equally to all foreign based companies in Australia. U.S. Companies in Australia: CIA Activities (Question No. 912) {: #subdebate-41-36-s6 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: >Is he able to say which United States companies that operate in Australia either directly or through a subsidiary or an associate company have admitted to activities overseas associated with the United States Central Intelligence Agency. If not, will he initiate action to identify these companies. {: #subdebate-41-36-s7 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -- (Acting Prime Minister)- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I do not propose to comment publicly upon matters concerning the domestic affairs of another country. However, the activities of all foreign based companies in Australia are subject to Australian law. U.S. Companies in Australia: Breaches of Privacy (Question No. 913) {: #subdebate-41-36-s8 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 May 1 977: >What specific provisions exist within the framework of Australian law to protect Australian citizens from breaches of their privacy by the activities of United States corporations which operate in Australia, either directly or through subsidiaries or in association with other companies, and who have admitted having acted in collaboration with or as agents for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. {: #subdebate-41-36-s9 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -- (Acting Prime Minister)- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >In cases of alleged invasions of privacy, from whatever source, Australian citizens can have recourse to the law currently applicable. However, the matter of privacy, as the honourable member will be aware, has been referred as a specific reference by the Attorney-General to the Australian Law Reform Commission under the chairmanship of **Mr Justice** Kirby. His report will be tabled in the Parliament and no doubt subjected to considerable public discussion and debate. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to authorise the considerable effort and man hours involved in answering the honourable member's question. Ashland Oil Inc. U.S. A.: CIA Activities (Question No. 914) {: #subdebate-41-36-s10 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) Can he say whether Ashland Oil Inc. of U.S.A. is a part owner of Valvoline (Australia) Pty Ltd and Australian Carbon Black Pty Ltd. 1. ls he also able to say if this is the same Ashland Oil Inc. of U.S.A. whose auditors advised the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on 9 August I97S that it was paid $98,968 by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency between 1 968 and 1 973 for undisclosed purposes. 2. Is he also able to say if the $98,968 paid to the Corporation was reimbursement to the corporation for employment of U.S. Central Intelligence Agency agents abroad as part of an agency deep cover operation as reported in the *Washington Post of 9 lAy* 1975. {: #subdebate-41-36-s11 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -- (Acting Prime Minister)- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Valvoline (Australia) Pty Ltd is incorporated in N.S.W. and Australian Carbon Black Pty Ltd is incorporated in Victoria. Details of the registered holders of the snares in those companies is on public record in the Corporate Affairs Offices in those States. 1. and (3) See answer to part (4) of question 910. Ashland Oil Inc. U.S. A. -CIA Activities (Question Nov 915) {: #subdebate-41-36-s12 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 May 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is he able to say whether Ashland Oil Inc of U.S.A. was a joint owner of Australian Carbon Black Pty Ltd and Valvoline (Australia) Pty Ltd in 1975. 1. Is he also able to say whether the Chairman of Ashland Oil Inc of U.S.A. was a **Mr Orin** E. Atkins in 1 975. 2. Is he also able to say whether this was the same Ashland Oil Inc. of U.S.A. that admitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 1 975 that it had carried on gross malpractices in domestic and foreign business dealings and had provided a cover for covert U.S. Central Intelligence Agency operatives outside the United States. 3. Can he also say if **Mr Orin** E. Atkins is the same **Mr Orin** E. Atkins who said he felt what he was doing was being done generally. {: #subdebate-41-36-s13 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -- (Acting Prime Minister)- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 refer the honourable member to my answer to part (1) of question No. 914. 1. , (3), (4) I refer the honourable member to my answer to part (4) of question No. 910. {:#subdebate-41-37} #### Australian Carbon Black Pty Ltd -Details (Question No. 916) {: #subdebate-41-37-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Can he say whether the firm Australian Carbon Black Pty Ltd carries on business in Australia. 1. Is he able to say if its directors were Messrs H. J. Warren, J. Andrews, S. Bennett, S. Coco, W. Greeley, E. A. Von Doerstan, R. E. Yancey and A. G. Aliotti in 1 976. 2. Is he also able to say if its alternate directors were Messrs P. C. Trumble, R. E. Dicker, F. S. Detheridge and R. M. McDonald in 1976. 3. Can he also say if the company is owned jointly by Ashland Oil Inc. of the United States and The Cabot Corporation U.S.A. {: #subdebate-41-37-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -- (Acting Prime Minister)- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. and (3) Messrs J. Andrews, S. B. Coco, W. Creeley, F. S. Detheridge, R. M. MacDonald and R. Yancy were directors of Australian Carbon Black Pty Ltd in 1 976.' 2. I refer the honourable member to my answer to part (1) of question No. 914 {:#subdebate-41-38} #### Valvoline (Aust.) Pty Ltd-Details (Question No. 917) {: #subdebate-41-38-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Can he say whether the firm Valvoline (Australia) Pty Ltd carries on business in Australia. 1. If so, is it owned jointly by Ashland Oil and Refining Coy, U.S.A., and Total (Aust.) Ltd. 2. Were its directors in 1976 Messrs Harold Victor Quinton, Oscar G. Meyer, Harry J. Warren, Alan Streichenberger, Zala C. Tatton and Edward J. Lacey. **Mr Anthony** (Acting Prime Minister)- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Two of the shareholders of the company are Ashland Valaust Inc. (U.S.A.) and Total Holdings (Aust.) Pty Ltd. 2. MrOscarG. Meyer was a director of Valvoline (Aust.) Pty Ltd in 1976. International Airlines: Competition with Domestic Carriers (Question No. 924) {: #subdebate-41-38-s1 .speaker-MH4} ##### Mr Jull: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 May 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are Qantas and foreign international airlines permitted to carry passengers between Australian capital cities in competition with the domestic carriers, provided that section of a journey forms part of an international ticket. 1. If so, on which routes are these operations undertaken and by which international carriers. 2. Has any estimate been made as to the annual value to the international carriers of this traffic. 3. Is the value referred to in part (3) considered to be a direct loss to the Australian domestic airlines. {: #subdebate-41-38-s2 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Qantas and foreign international airlines are permitted to carry passengers between Australian capital cities provided that section of a journey forms part of an international ticket. Whether this is in fact in competition with the domestic carriers is a matter of interpretation. 1. Estimates given by an Australian domestic carrier in evidence to the House of Representatives Select Committee on Tourism estimated this traffic to be worth in the order of $30 m annually to the domestic carriers. 2. The Australian domestic carriers certainly consider this to be so. The Department of Transport has commenced a study of all aspects of this question. International Airlines: Competition with Domestic Carriers (Question No. 925) {: #subdebate-41-38-s3 .speaker-MH4} ##### Mr Jull: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is it possible for a domestic passenger to purchase a ticket on a Qantas or other international airline flight, for travel between 2 Australian ports. 1. If so, under what conditions are these tickets sold. 2. Which international carriers offer this service and between which Australian airports. 3. How many Australians are estimated to have used this form of travel during 1 976. {: #subdebate-41-38-s4 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Under normal circumstances, no. 1. Special circumstances are approved personally by the Minister for Transport from time to time whereby domestic passengers can in fact purchase tickets on international flights within Australia. Such circumstances include members of Federal Parliament travelling on urgent business where no suitable domestic service is available and officers of the Crown escorting visiting dignitaries on the Australian sectors of their arrival in or departure from Australia. 2. International airlines are not permitted to offer this service. Arrangements are made with the appropriate airline in respect of a particular service at the time of travel following specific approval from the Minister for Transport. 3. Less than 30. {:#subdebate-41-39} #### International Airlines: Advance Purchase Excursion Fare (Question No. 926) {: #subdebate-41-39-s0 .speaker-MH4} ##### Mr Jull: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many passengers have taken advantage of the Apef fares being offered by international airlines between Australia and Great Britain. 1. Do these fares also operate from Britain to Australia for British and European passengers. 2. If so, how many British and European citizens have arrived in Australia since the introduction of the Apef fares. {: #subdebate-41-39-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member 's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) In the months of April and May, Qantas carried 5618 Advance Purchase Excursion Fare (APEF) passengers out of Australia and 2070 into Australia. The number of bookings currently held by Qantas for the first year of operation is 24 086 out of Australia and 26 566 into Australia. Precise figures are not available for the other airlines offering the APEF fares, but it is believed that these airlines hold a total of approximately 30 000 bookings for travel from Australia. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The APEF fares operate from Britain to Australia for residents of the United Kingdom only. The Australian authorities have offered to European authorities similar fares arrangements to and from European destinations but arrangements have not been finalised. 1. It is not possible to calculate the precise number of British citizens who have arrived in Australia since the introduction of the APEF fares. However, it is estimated that approximately 8000 British citizens have arrived in Australia during the months of April and May. {:#subdebate-41-40} #### Brisbane Airport: Lufthansa and Condor (Question No. 927) {: #subdebate-41-40-s0 .speaker-MH4} ##### Mr Jull: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the West German airline, Lufthansa, or its charter subsidiary, Condor, applied for landing rights at Brisbane International Airport. 1. If so, does the company propose in the application to bring a minimum of 235 German tourists to the Gold Coast each week on package holidays. 2. Has he made a decision as to whether approval will be given for landing rights for the company. 3. If the application has been rejected, on what basis was the rejection made, bearing in mind the depressed state of the tourist industry. {: #subdebate-41-40-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. Not applicable. 2. Not applicable. 3. Not applicable. {:#subdebate-41-41} #### Effect of Ozone (Question No. 931) {: #subdebate-41-41-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the report on page 1 of the *Australian Financial* Review of 23 May 1977 relating to the effect of ozone on airline crews and travellers. 1. If so, is he able to say whether the claims made in the report are accurate. 2. 3 ) What studies have been carried out by his Department into the effect of ozone on long distance air travellers. {: #subdebate-41-41-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. It is not possible to verify individual fitness accounts of ozone irritation in United States aircraft but the United States Federal Aviation Administration has acknowledged that cases have been identified. Significant concentrations of ozone in the atmosphere occur normally above 40 000 feet, but the lower limit of such concentrations fluctuates with season and perhaps other factors. It is lowest in high latitudes in the northern hemisphere at this time of the year. Airline aircraft in this country do not normally operate above 40 000 feet. 2. The Depanment of Transport has not carried out any studies on the effect of ozone on long distance air travellers. However, it is in contact with the Federal Aviation Administration and the American aircraft manufacturers and is monitoring the situation. {:#subdebate-41-42} #### Masling Airlines: Engine Failure (Question No. 932) {: #subdebate-41-42-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have any aircraft operated by Masling Airlines suffered engine failure whilst in service during 1976 and 1977. 1. If so, what were the circumstances and date of each failure and what action has been taken by his Department to investigate the causes of the failures. {: #subdebate-41-42-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes- two such failures have been reported. The first occurred after take-off from Nowra on 20 October 1976 and the second en route Essendon to Sydney on 8 February 1977. 1. Normal incident and defect investigation procedures were followed in each case including metallurgical examination of failed parts. The first failure involved a detached cylinder due to failure of hold down studs and the second resulted from a broken connecting rod due to galling of the bearing bore. The second incident involved reported malfunctioning of both engines of the aircraft and led to an emergency night landing at Goulburn. Investigation has so far confirmed one engine as mechanically defective. The reason for the reported malfunction of the other engine is still under investigation. {:#subdebate-41-43} #### Australia's Aid Program (Question No. 936) {: #subdebate-41-43-s0 .speaker-00ATA} ##### Mr Hodges: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice on 26 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to statements by the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. J. Bjelke-Petersen, in the *Sunday Sun* of 17 April 1977 in which he stated that Australia's aid program should be reduced. 1. If so, has he received any submissions from the Queensland Government on this matter. {: #subdebate-41-43-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. No. {:#subdebate-41-44} #### Stock Valuation Adjustment Scheme (Question No. 938) {: #subdebate-41-44-s0 .speaker-L6X} ##### Mr Garrick: asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 26 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will the so-called stock valuation adjustment scheme introduced into Parliament on 23 April 1977 effectively reduce company tax from 42.5 per cent to an average of 37 per cent. 1. Will the change be worth approximately $360m to companies in 1977-78. 2. Is this the sort of action envisaged when the Government talks of tax cuts. 3. Is the wage and salary earner likely to get a cut in taxes of proportional value in the near future. {: #subdebate-41-44-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) It is estimated that the stock valuation adjustment allowance will have the effect of reducing collections of company tax by $360m in 1977-78. The same effect would follow, it is estimated, if the rate of company tax operative in 1977-78 were 37 per cent. 1. and (4) The stock valuation adjustment allowance is a means of relieving businesses from the impact of inflation on their tax burdens inasmuch as these involve financing the costs of an adequate and apropriate level of trading stocks in an inflationary period. The allowance has effect from I July 1976, but companies will not benefit by it directly until their tax assessments issue in 1977-78. By contrast, wage and salary earners have been getting the benefit of tax indexation (on the basis of a 13 per cent factor) since 1 July 1976 and will further benefit when the second round of indexation (on the basis of a 10.9 per cent factor) begins for them on 1 July 1977. {:#subdebate-41-45} #### Child Abductions (Question No. 940) {: #subdebate-41-45-s0 .speaker-CV4} ##### Mr Jacobi: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 26 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Do Commonwealth Police estimate that more than 1 Australian born child is being abducted overseas every fortnight and that inadequate help is made available by the Government to repatriate them. 1. In many cases has the Commonwealth Crimes Act been breached and are current passport regulations inadequate to cater for an Australian population in which 25 per cent of all persons are dual citizens, thus making child abduction by 1 parent through a Foreign Embassy or High Commission an easy matter. 2. Does the Government treat child abduction as a civil matter thus denying financial aid to Australian mothers and fathers whose children have been stolen. 3. Will he examine the case of **Mrs Raphael** Calogero of Granville, New South Wales, who was force to expend all her financial resources to recover her abducted child with the help of an Australian journalist who, at his own expense, has assisted in the repatriation of 3 abducted Australian children in the last 3 years. 4. Is **Mrs Calogero** now receiving threats on her live that the Commonwealth Police are investigating. 5. Will he inquire whether the services of Interpol have been used and with what result in attempting to trace the whereabouts of missing Australians. 6. Did he promise immediate action to remedy this situation, in the Sydney *Sun* ' Hot Line ' 3 months ago; if so, what action has been taken. {: #subdebate-41-45-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answers to the honourable members questions are as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Commonwealth Police do not estimate that more than one Australian child is being abducted overseas every fortnight. However, several requests are received each fortnight from the Department of Foreign Affairs seeking the assistance of this Force in the taking of preventive action on behalf of a parent granted custody of a child who expresses a fear that the other partner to the marriage may attempt to remove a child from Australia without consent. In appropriate cases steps are taken to prevent such removal. The Department of Foreign Affairs would consider any request for repatriation of an Australian child under the rules which are laid down for repatriation of Australian citizens. The conditions of repatriation of Australian citizens require that the funds expended be repaid by the individual. The Department has in fact repatriated some abducted children under those provisions. 1. The provisions most likely to be breached are sections 62, Migration Act and 10 Passports Act. In some cases section 67 (b) of the Crimes Act may have been breached. The Department of Foreign Affairs has undertaken a review of the Passports Act and the review indicates that within the ambit of the present responsibilities of the Department of Foreign Affairs there is little that can be done by it alone to prevent child abduction. An approach has therefore been made to set up an interdepartmental committee to see whether, in conjunction with other departments, further steps might be taken to help prevent child abduction. 2. The question of financial aid would be more appropriately answered by my colleague the Attorney-General. 3. In the case of **Mrs Calegero** 's child, the Department of Foreign Affairs gave approval to the Australian Embassy Berne to provide a ticket to Australia for the child subject to the usual undertaking to repay being given. In fact **Mrs Calogero** arranged the return ticket by other means. 4. My colleague the Minister for Administrative Services has informed me that the Commonwealth Police Force is not aware of threats having been made on **Mrs Calegero** 's life. 5. The services of Interpol have been used successfully to trace the whereabouts of missing Australians. There are established criteria by which to determine whether a particular case may be referred to that organisation. 6. At the Minister's direction, the Department of Foreign Affairs has undertaken a detailed review of the question, the results of which are now to receive consideration by all Departments concerned. It is intended that early recommendations will be made to the Government. Charter Flights from Australia (Question No. 942) {: #subdebate-41-45-s2 .speaker-0J4} ##### Mr Ruddock:
DUNDAS, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 26 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does his Department maintain records of charter flights made from Australia. 1. If so, is he able to say (a) the date on which the Premier of New South Wales, **Mr Wran,** flew to Noumea, ( b ) who owned the aircraft in which the Premier travelled, (c) what was the type of aircraft and its seating capacity, (d) how many passengers were on board, (e) who were the passengers and ( f ) what was the total cost of the flight. 2. Has his attention been drawn to a statement in the Sydney *Sun* of 17 May 1977 that the Premier's Press Secretary, **Mr Brian** Dale, told reporters that **Mr and Mrs Wran** were paying for their share of the flight; if so, is he able to say if payment was made. 3. Has his attention also been drawn to a statement in the same newspaper that Peter Terry of the *A ustralian* bypassed the Premier's office and called Noumea direct, that **Mr Wran** told him he was not paying for the trip at all, that it was Thomas Nationwide Transport which was picking up the $2,000 tab for the charter flight, that **Mr Dale** has since admitted he was mistaken and that **Mr Wran** has since said he had intended to pay for the 2 seats but because of certain air traffic regulations TNT was not allowed to share the cost with the other parties; if so, what air traffic regulations cover these situations. 4. Are there any penalties prescribed in the air traffic regulations for payment for travel on charter aircraft by other than cash payment; if so, what are the details. {: #subdebate-41-45-s3 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. (a) Thursday, 12 May 1977. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Southbank Aviation. 1. Cessna Citation. Standard configuration six passengers. 2. (e) (f) The flight was approved as a private flight. No information concerning the cost of the flight or the names of the passengers on board was sought by the Department as it was to be conducted as a private flight. 2. and (4) I am aware that there has been considerable media comment concerning **Mr Wran's** trip. The flight was approved under the terms of Air Navigation Regulation 199AA- 'An aircraft other than an aircraft engaged in a regular public transport operation shall not fly between a place in Australian territory and a place outside Australian territory or between places outside Australian territory except with the express approval of the Secretary the Secretary may gram the approval subject to compliance with such instructions and conditions as he considers necessary or desirable in relation to that flight '. 3. No. So long as the flight complies with the terms of approval. {:#subdebate-41-46} #### Prosecution for Gun Running: Darwin (Question No. 943) {: #subdebate-41-46-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 26 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) With reference to his reply to question No. 668 *(Hansard,* 25 May 1977, page 1 893) was any ministerial authority sought before the prosecutions under section 245 were commenced in 1976. 1. If not, was he or were any of his Ministers informed by the Collector of Customs for the Northern Territory that he was considering the prosecution; if so, what advice was given by any Minister. {: #subdebate-41-46-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. The decision to prosecute in this particular case was taken by officers of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. Consistent with other prosecutions for custom offences, the decision was based on the evidence obtained during an investigation. A number of Ministers were aware of developments in this matter. However, I am informed that no advice was sought of Ministers by officers of the Department in relation to the proposed prosecution, nor was any such advice offered. {:#subdebate-41-47} #### Cancer Patients: Transportation (Question No. 948) {: #subdebate-41-47-s0 .speaker-K5A} ##### Mr O'Keefe: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is he able to say whether cancer patients face many problems with transport. 1. Do they spend an immense amount of money to travel to clinics for treatment. 2. Is this travel expense tax deductible. 3. If not, is it particularly severe on country people. 4. Will he investigate this matter with a view to making this travel a tax deduction. {: #subdebate-41-47-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="1"} 0. l ) and (2) Many people have to travel to obtain advice or treatment for a wide variety of health reasons and, in so doing, some no doubt do face problems and incur abnormal expenses. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Expenses so incurred are not, and never have been, allowable for income tax purposes. 1. Not necessarily so. Residents of urban areas can also face substantial transport bills. 2. The matter has been investigated on several occasions. The conclusion has been that the allowance of health travel expenses would give rise to problems of various kinds. I note here that the question of delivery of health care to the community has been under study by the Hospital and Health Services Commission whose report is being considered by the Government. If any initiatives were taken in this area, it would be preferable, I believe, for them to be direct measures, rather than indirect assistance through the income tax system. Foreign Airlines: Operations in Australia (Question No. 950) {: #subdebate-41-47-s2 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did he tell me in an answer to question No. 725 *(Hansard,* 25 May 1977, page 1894) that the policy under normal circumstances is that foreign airlines are not permitted to fly passengers between Australian cities in competition with domestic airlines. 1. If so, under what circumstances are foreign airlines permitted to fly passengers between Australian cities in competition with domestic airlines. 2. What foreign airlines have been permitted to fly under these circumstances and between which cities have they flown during 1976 and 1977. {: #subdebate-41-47-s3 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Domestic passengers are permitted to be carried between Australian cities in certain circumstances by foreign airlines in accordance with the personal direction of the Minister for Transport. Examples of instances where such direction has been given include members of Federal Parliament travelling on urgent business where suitable domestic services are not available and officers of the Crown escorting visiting foreign dignitaries over route sectors within Australia. 2. Where these instances have occurred they have usually involved travel between Melbourne or Sydney and Darwin and Perth. Airlines involved are usually Qantas, British Airways or Air India. I would add that international carriers are permitted to carry international passengers between Australian cities where the route sector concerned forms part of a passenger's international journey. The Australian domestic operators have stated they consider that such carriage is in competition with their own operations. Whether this is so is a matter of interpretation. The Department of Transport has recently instituted an enquiry into all aspects of this question. {:#subdebate-41-48} #### Tarcoola-Alice Springs Railway (Question No. 952) {: #subdebate-41-48-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 May 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has any firm decision yet been made by the Australian National Railways to establish rail/road transfer facilities at Manguri on the Tarcoola-Alice Springs Railway. 1. If so, when can it be anticipated that the transfer facilities will come into operation and what plans are in hand regarding the existing Marree-Alice Springs section of the existing Central Australian Railway. {: #subdebate-41-48-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) No firm decision has been made by the Australian National Railways to establish rail/road facilities at Manguri on the Tarcoola to Alice Springs railway for handling through traffic. However, normal facilities are to be provided at Manguri to handle local traffic from the surrounding areas, particularly Coober Pedy. 1. There are no plans in hand regarding changes to existing arrangements for continued operations of the Marree to Alice Springs section of the Central Australia Railway. {:#subdebate-41-49} #### Australian Commercial Airlines: Sale of Aircraft (Question No. 962) {: #subdebate-41-49-s0 .speaker-MH4} ##### Mr Jull: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 30 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are Australian commercial airlines permitted to sell their unwanted aircraft to other Australian airlines; if not, why not. 1. To which companies and nations were Australian commercial aircraft sold during 1976. 2. What was the type of aircraft referred to in part (2), and what amount was realised for each sale. 3. How many and what type of commercial aircraft were imported into Australia in 1976. {: #subdebate-41-49-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) In the case of Qantas and TAA: yes, subject to my approval. In the case of other airlines: yes, subject to my approval of the acquisition of the aircraft by the purchaser if the provisions of the Airlines Equipment Act are attracted. 1. Air Nauru, Nauru, Air Niugini, Papua New Guinea, British Caledonian Airways Ltd, U.K., Commercial Airways Ltd, South Africa, Compania Interamericana ExportImport, U.S.A. 2. Boeing 707-338C-2 aircraft, $A5,000,000 and $A4,325,000 respectively. Boeing 727-100 series-3 aircraft, $US3,550,000, $US 1 , 1 90,2 1 0 and $A 1 ,320,000 respectively. Fokker F27-200 series-1 aircraft, $A290,000; 4 aircraft, $A 1,638,000 (individual amounts not available). The amounts shown, except for the inclusive amount shown for the four Fokker F27-200 series aircraft above are the amounts stated as the value of the aircraft on Export Permit applications. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. 1 Boeing 747-238B; 2 Boeing 727-200 series; 6 Fokker F27-500 series; 1 Sikorsky S.61 helicopter. Australian National Railways: House rents (Question No. 964) {: #subdebate-41-49-s2 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr Wallis: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 30 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. To what extent are Australian National Railway homes, occupied by employees, at line locations, subsidised in respect of the amount of rent charged. 1. Are ANR homes in Port Augusta, occupied by employees, subject to any rent subsidy; if so, to what extent, and now is the subsidy applied. {: #subdebate-41-49-s3 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Average rentals charged to employees occupying ANR houses at line locations is $4.50 per week and maximum charges approximately $6 per week. ANR advise that maintenance costs alone on each of these houses averages $ 1 1 00 per annum or approximately $2 1 per week. 1. ANR house rentals at Port Augusta vary up to a maximum of approximately $23 per week. This compares with rentals for new tenants of between $29 and $34 per week charged by the South Australian Housing Trust in Port Augusta. This lower rental represents a form of subsidy offered by ANR as a means of attracting staff to Port Augusta. Defence Central Complex: Wearing of Uniform by Personnel (Question No. 966) {: #subdebate-41-49-s4 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are Service personnel in postings in the Defence Central complex required to wear uniform when on duty. 1. ) If not, have these personnel always been entitled not to wear uniform. 2. If not, when and by virtue of what direction were these Service personnel authorised not to wear uniform when on duty. 3. What are the present terms and conditions under which these Service personnel may or may not wear uniform when on duty. {: #subdebate-41-49-s5 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) Service personnel posted to Defence Central Staff and the three Service Offices are encouraged, but not required to wear uniform while on duty, except as directed for specific occasions. 1. Yes. 2. and (4) Service personnel in the Defence complex are under the direction of the individual Services with regard to the wearing of uniform. The Chiefs of Staff Committee reaffirmed as general policy in 1974 that the wearing of uniform by Service personnel in the Defence complex should not be compulsory. {:#subdebate-41-50} #### Pensions: Overpayments (Question No. 967) {: #subdebate-41-50-s0 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many (a) aged pensioners, (b) widow pensioners, (c) supporting mothers beneficiaries and (d) other beneficiaries were receiving a pension above their entitlement due to the transfer from a means test to an income test between November 1976 and May 1977. 1. How many such persons were receiving pensions of (a) SI, (b) $2, (c) $3, (d) $4, (e) $5, (0 $6, (g) $7, (h) $8, (i) $9, (j) $10 and (k) more than $10 above their entitlement. 2. 3 ) What are the comparable figures since May 1 977. {: #subdebate-41-50-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister of Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >The only information available is that shown in answer to Question No. 61 1. Directory of Ethnic Organisations in Australia (Question No. 968) {: #subdebate-41-50-s2 .speaker-JVS} ##### Mr Neil: asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 May 1977: >Does the Department of Social Security plan to publish an updated version of the Directory National Groups in Australia. {: #subdebate-41-50-s3 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. A new edition of the directory of Ethnic Organisations in Australia is currently in the process of being published by the Department of Social Security and this will soon be distributed free of charge to persons and organisations concerned with the well being of migrants. The current edition of the Directory consists of separate publications for each State and the Australian Capital Territory. In view of the developing role of State Governments in publishing similar directories, the second edition will be a modified format and its primary purpose will be simply to provide a convenient, practical check list of organisations for all States and Territories in the one publication. The directory will also contain other information important to ethnic groups about matters which are primarily a Commonwealth responsibility. An important addition will be a comprehensive listing of multi-lingual material published by Commonwealth and State Government Departments. Also, it is proposed in future to publish and distribute new and updated editions of the directory every 1 2 months. As soon as printed copies are available I intend sending a copy to all Senators and Members. {:#subdebate-41-51} #### Social Security Benefits (Question No. 997) {: #subdebate-41-51-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 31 May 1977: >How many social security beneficiaries received (a) no increase and (b) a partial increase only in May 1977 due to the change in the means test preventing the conversion of certain incomes to assets in November 1 976. {: #subdebate-41-51-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question. The only information available is that shown in answer to Question No. 6 11. {:#subdebate-41-52} #### Sydney Airport: Galston (Question No. 1000) {: #subdebate-41-52-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 June 1977: >Is he able to say what factors have led to the Galston area being again investigated as a possible site for Sydney's second major airport by the **Major Airport** Needs of Sydney Committee. {: #subdebate-41-52-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >An area of land in the vicinity of Galston has been included in one of the four Zones currently being investigated as a possible location for a second major airport in the Sydney region. The basis of this inclusion is that the Commonwealth/State Committee conducting the investigation could find insufficient technical grounds presently available for the exclusion of this area as compared with other areas in the four Zones. It is stressed that the current study is very comprehensive and will look at the desirability of developing new airport facilities in comparison with the desirability of developing existing facilities taking into account the full range of social, environmental, technical and economic factors. {:#subdebate-41-53} #### Roads: Funding (Question No. 1001) {: #subdebate-41-53-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 June 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What amount was paid or expected to be paid, to each of the States, under each category of expenditure as provided in (a) the *National Roads Act* 1974, (b) the *Roads Grants Act* 1974, (c) the *Transport (Planning and Research) Act* 1974, (d) the *Roads Acts Amendments Act* 1976, (e) the *Roads Acts Amendment Act (No. 2)* 1976, and (0 the *Roads Acts Amendment Bill* 1977 during the years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. 1. What is the remainder expected to be of the appropriations under each of those Acts by State and in total as at 30 June 1977. {: #subdebate-41-53-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Payments to the States under each category of the *National Roads Act* 1974, the *Road Grants Act* 1974, and the *Transport (Planning and Research) Act* 1 974 are outlined in the following tables. The tables incorporate transfers between categories and between years within Acts, and between Acts. The tables also take account of supplementary amounts provided to the States under the *Roads Acts Amendments Act* 1976, the *Roads Acts Amendment Act (No. 2)* 1976, and the *Roads Act Amendment Bill* 1977. As allocations to the States under the Amendment Acts have been subject to variation under the principal Acts, it is not possible to provide information in relation to the actual expenditure per year for the supplementary amounts (see attached tables). 1. As the honourable member will appreciate, both the National Roads Act and the Transport (Planning and Research) Act provide that, subject to commitments being entered into prior to 30 June, a State may expend funds provided for a financial year for a period of up to six months after completion of the financial year. The Roads Grants Act provides for expenditure to be incurred in the six months following the end of the year from funds set aside for that purpose before the expiry of the financial year. Given these provisions of the legislation I am not in a position to advise the honourable member of what amounts are expected to remain unexpended as at 30 June 1977. However, I have no reason to expect that the States, by making use of set aside and commitment provisions, will nol be able to expend all their allocations by 3 1 December 1 977. {:#subdebate-41-54} #### Department of Transport: Overseas Visits by Officers (Question No. 1011) {: #subdebate-41-54-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 June 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the name and classification of each officer of his Department who travelled overseas or is scheduled to travel overseas during the periods (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 30 June 1976 and (b) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 on duties associated with (i) overseas visits by the Prime Minister, (ii) overseas visits by the Minister, (iii) overseas visits by any other Minister and (iv) overseas visits for any other purpose. 1. What charges were made against his Department's estimates in respect of each of those officers under the categories listed in pan ( 1 ) by way of ( a) cost of travel, ( b ) cost of accommodation and (c) other costs. 2. What amounts were recovered or are to be recovered from other departments in respect of those officers, and in respect of what activities by those officers on behalf of other departments were the amounts recovered or are expected to be recovered. 3. Were funds set aside in the Department's estimates in each of the relevant periods for expenditure of this nature; if so, what were the amounts provided and what were the division and sub-division numbers. 4. If funds were not set aside in the Department's estimates, from what source were the expenditures paid showing division and sub-division numbers. 5. From whom were the requests for duties to be carried out on behalf of other departments, including the Prime Minister's Department, received and when. {: #subdebate-41-54-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See answer to question No. 1003 {:#subdebate-41-55} #### Officers' Overseas Travel (Question No. 1013) {: #subdebate-41-55-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Foregin Affairs, upon notice, on 1 June 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the name and classification of each officer of his Department who travelled overseas or is scheduled to travel overseas during the periods (a) 1 1 November 1973 to 30 June 1976 and (b) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 on duties associated with (i) overseas visits by the Prime Minister, (ii) overseas visits by him, (iti) overseas visits by any other Ministers and (iv) overseas visits for any other purpose. 1. What charges were made against his Department's estimates in respect of each of those officers under the categories listed in part ( 1 ) by way of (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation and (c) other costs. 2. What amounts were recovered or are to be recovered from other departments in respect of those officers, and in respect of what activities by those officers on behalf of other departments were the amounts recovered or are expected to be recovered. 3. Were funds set aside in the Department's estimates in each of the relevant periods for expenditure of this nature; if so, what were the amounts provided and what were the division and sub-division numbers. 4. If funds were not set aside in the Department's estimates, from what source were the expenditures paid showing division and sub-division numbers. 5. From whom were the requests for duties to be carried out on behalf of other departments, including the Prime Minister's Depanment, received and when. {: #subdebate-41-55-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable member to the answer to Question No. 1003 provided by the Acting Prime Minister. {:#subdebate-41-56} #### Department of Construction: Overseas Travel (Question No. 1023) {: #subdebate-41-56-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 1 June 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What in the name and classification of each officer of his Depanment who travelled overseas or is scheduled to travel overseas during the periods (a) 1 1 November 197S to 30 June 1976 and (b) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 on duties associated with (i) overseas visits by the Prime Minister, (ii) overseas visits by him, (iii) overseas visits by any other Ministers and (iv) overseas visits for any other purpose. 1. What charges were made against his Department's estimates in respect of each of those officers under the cater.gories listed in pan ( 1 ) by way of (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation and (c) other costs. 2. What amounts were recovered or are to be recovered from other departments in respect of those officers, and in respect of what activities by those officers on behalf of other departments were the amounts recovered or are expected to be recovered. 3. Were funds set aside in the Department's estimates in each of the relevant periods for expenditure of this nature, if so, what were the amounts provided and what were the division and sub-division numbers. 4. If funds were not set aside in the Department's estimates, from what source were the expenditures paid showing division and sub-division and sub-division numbers. 5. From whom were the requests for duties to be carried out on behalf of other departments, including the Prime Minister's Department, received and when. {: #subdebate-41-56-s1 .speaker-KSB} ##### Mr McLeay:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable member to the answer to Question No. 1003. {:#subdebate-41-57} #### Department of Productivity: Overseas Travel (Question No. 1028) {: #subdebate-41-57-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 1 June 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the name and classification of each officer of his depanment who travelled overseas or is scheduled to travel overseas during the periods (a) 1 1 November 197S to 30 June 1976 and (b) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 on duties associated with (i) overseas visits by the Prime Minister, (ii) overseas visits by him, (iii) overseas visits by any other Ministers and (iv) overseas visits for any other purpose. 1. ) What charges were made against his Depanment 's estimates in respect of each of those officers under the categories listed in part ( 1 ) by way of (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation and (c) other costs. 2. What amounts were recovered or are to be recovered from other departments in respect of those officers, and in respect of what activities by those officers on behalf of other departments were the amounts recovered or are expected to be recovered. 3. Were funds set aside in the Department's estimates in each of the relevant periods for expenditure of this nature; if so, what were the amounts provided and what were the division and sub-division numbers. 4. If funds were not set aside in the Department's estimates, from what source were the expenditures paid showing division and sub-division numbers. 5. From whom were the requests for duties to be carried out on behalf of other departments, including the Prime Minister's Depanment, received and when. {: #subdebate-41-57-s1 .speaker-6I4} ##### Mr Macphee:
LP -The answer to the honourable gentleman's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply provided by the Prime Minister to question No. 1 003 on 2 June 1977. 1982 Commonwealth Games: Brisbane (Question No. 1030) {: #subdebate-41-57-s2 .speaker-MH4} ##### Mr Jull: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 June 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What approaches has the Prime Minister received from the Brisbane City Council requesting financial assistance for the staging of the 1982 Commonwealth Games. 1. What form did the Brisbane City Council submission take and to what extent does the Council want Commonwealth participation. 2. Is he satisfied that the submission represents a true indication of what moneys will be required to stage the games; if so, when will he announce the Commonwealth's allocation to the Council; if not, what further details are required from the Council to enable a decision to be made. {: #subdebate-41-57-s3 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Prime Minister has received a copy of the Brisbane City Council's submission to the Queensland Government in regard to financial proposals for sponing facilities for the Games, plus supporting letters. 1. ) The City Council 's submission canvassed a number of cost options for providing sporting facilities. It is understood that the Council supports a Commonwealth contribution of up to $ 10m for sporting facilities. 2. As indicated in the answer to question Nos 492 (Senate *Hansard,* 25 May, page 1405) and 497 (Senate *Hansard,* 26 May, page 1519), further information on accommodation and administration costs is required to allow the Commonwealth to determine the nature and extent of any contribution it may wish to make towards the staging of the 1982 Games. Pre-school Funding (Question No. 1035) {: #subdebate-41-57-s4 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 June 1977: >On what date did each Premier respond to the Prime Minister's letter of 3 November 1976 seeking his thoughts on the form of consultative arrangements that could operate between the Federal and State Governments on pre-school funding (Senate *Han sard,* 10 December 1976, page 3 148). {: #subdebate-41-57-s5 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >Replies to some of the points raised in the Prime Minister's letter to State Premiers were dated as follows: > >New South Wales- 1 6 November 1 976 > >Victoria-4 May 1977 > >Queensland-22 December 1976 > >South Australia- 8 December 1976 > >Western Australia- 23 December 1976 > >Tasmania- 9 December 1976 > >The form of consultative arrangements has not been finalised in any State. {:#subdebate-41-58} #### Industrial Equity Ltd (Question No. 1068) {: #subdebate-41-58-s0 .speaker-AV4} ##### Mr Hurford: asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 June 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is Industrial Equity Limited (IEL) 'a person ' to whom the compulsory notification provisions of the *Foreign Takeovers Act* 1975 apply. 1. If so, (a) why have the Company's representatives claimed successfully to date the IEL has been so restructured to take it out of the ambit of the *Foreign Takeovers Act* and {: type="a" start="b"} 0. does this mean that the company has breached section 26 of the *Foreign Takeovers Act* on at least 2 occasions by virtue of its acquisition of shares in Wm Haughton and Co. Ltd. 2. If the position is as stated in part 2 (b), (a) does the Treasurer propose to authorise prosecution of the company under section 26 of the *Foreign Takeovers Act* and (b) has the Foreign Investment Division of Treasury or the Foreign Investment Review Board recommended to him that action be taken against IEL. 3. If a recommendation has been made in accordance with pan 3 (b), has he followed that recommendation; if not, why not. 4. If a recommendation was not made in accordance with pan 3 (b), what were the reasons given for not recommending action. 5. If the answer to pan 2 (b) is in the negative, (a) has the Government received any recommendations from either the Foreign Investment Review Board or Treasury's Foreign Investment Division to amend the *Foreign Takeovers Act* in order to bring foreign controlled companies that do not breach the 15 per cent or 40 per cent benchmarks set up by the *Foreign Takeovers Act* within the ambit of that legislation's compulsory notification provisions, and (b) does the Government intend to introduce such legislation; if not, why not. 6. What is the ownership if IEL, and the ownership of each corporate shareholder. 7. Do the words ' 1 5 per centum of the issued shares in the corporation' in paragraph 9 ( 1 ) (a) of the *Foreign Takeovers Act* refer to the dollar value of a company's issued capital or the numer of shares issued by the company. 8. Does the Government consider that the ambit of subsection 26 ( 1 ) of the *Foreign Takeovers Act* is too wide; if not, why not; if so, does the Government propose to amend that sub-section. 9. Has the Foreign Investment Review Board or Treasury's Foreign Investment Review Board recommended that sub-section 26(1) should be amended in order to decrease its scope. 10. If not, has he or the Foreign Investment Review Board or Treasury received representations that the ambit of the Foreign Takeovers Act's compulsory notification provisions are too wide; if so, will he release those representations. 11. Has the Foreign Investment Review Board advised the Government on the need for, and the scope of, a Foreign Investment Review Act as he requested in his statement ofl April 1976 on foreign investments; if so, when did it do so, and will he release that advice; if not, is the Board presently working on this matter. 12. 13) If the Board has not advised the Government on this matter, and is not presently working on it, why has the Board not met his request to do so. {: #subdebate-41-58-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: ( 1-8 ) The position of the company referred to, in relation to Section 26 of the *Foreign Takeovers Act,* involves complex questions of fact and law which are receiving careful study. (9-11) It is recognised that Section 26 of the *Foreign Takeovers Act* can have the effect of requiring companies that are owned and controlled predominantly by Australian interests to submit notifications under that Section. However, it is also recognised that the Act must cover circumstances where companies with only a small proportion of shares held by overseas interests are effectively foreign controlled enterprises. The Foreign Investment Review Board has a continuing responsibility for keeping the Act under review. (12-13) The Foreign Investment Review Board has this matter under study. {:#subdebate-41-59} #### Social Security Benefits Payable to Non-Residents of Australia (Question No. 1070) {: #subdebate-41-59-s0 .speaker-QF4} ##### Mr Connolly: asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Social Security upon notice, on 2 June 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is it a fact that since 8 May 1973 people who leave Australia have been entitled to continue to receive social security benefits. 1. If so, what conditions attach to the payment of these benefits, and in what way are these conditions different to those applying to the eligibility for pensions of persons resident in Australia. 2. How many persons who are not resident in Australia (a) receive or (b) are entitled to receive benefis 3. What is the cost to revenue of payment of these benefits. 4. What classes of benefits are so payable to persons overseas, and how many persons are in each class. 5. Can the Minister say what other countries continue to pay benefits to non-residents in similar conditions as those described in the answer to part (2). {: #subdebate-41-59-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) From 8 May 1973, age, invalid, wives' and widows' pensions have continued to be paid to pensioners leaving Australia. Supporting mothers' benefits have been payable overseas from the time of their introduction in July 1973. The conditions for payment of pensions overseas are substantially the same as apply in Australia, but supplementary assistance and fringe benefit concessions are not available outside Australia. 1. and (4) The information requested is not available. However, at 30 June 1976, 10,008 pensions were being paid to pensioners overseas and the expenditure in 1975-76 was approximately $14.6 million. This includes amounts paid under reciprocal arrangements to Australian residents temporarily in the United Kingdom or New Zealand. 2. See answer to ( 1 ). The numbers of pensioners in each class at 30 June 1976 is shown at page 1 16 of the Annual Report of the Director-General, Department of Social Security, for 1975-76. 3. Information is not available from which an exhaustive list could be compiled of countries whose pensions continue to be payable to people who cease to be residents. A number of countries pay some pensions abroad, e.g. Greece, Italy and The Netherlands. In some instances, e.g. West Germany, pensions are paid to aliens abroad only if there is a reciprocal agreement between the two countries concerned. In other cases, pensions are not payable abroad or are not payable abroad except under reciprocal arrangements. Committees on Discrimination in Employment (Question No. 382) {: #subdebate-41-59-s2 .speaker-ZJ4} ##### Mr Willis:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 16 March 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many meetings has (a) the national and (b) each State Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation held since 1 1 November 1975. 1. 2 ) When and where was each meeting held. {: #subdebate-41-59-s3 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question, for the period from 11 November 1975 to 3 1 May 1977, is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) National Committee: Eleven meetings, all held in Melbourne, on the following dates- 18.12.1975; 2.2.1976; 3.3.1976; 5.4.1976; 12.5.1976; 10.12.1976; 24. 1 . 1 977; 9.2. 1 977; 10.3. 1 977; 2.5. 1 977 and 30.5. 1 977. New South Wales Committee: Eleven meetings, all held in Sydney, on the following dates-3.12.1975; 28.1.1976; 24.2.1976; 14.4.1976; 26.5.1976; 24.6.1976; 13.12.1976; 18.2. 1977; 1.3. 1977; 4.4.1977 and 2.5. 1977. Victorian Committees: Thirteen meetings held in Melbourne, on the following dates- 15. 12. 1975; 2.2.1976; 22.3.1976; 12.4.1976; 3.5.1976; 29.6.1976; 13.12.1976; 20.12.1976; 2.2.1977; 1.3.1977; 29.3.1977; 15.4.1977 and 18.5.1977; plus one meeting held in Wangaratta on 24.5.1976. Queensland Committee: Eleven meetings, held in Brisbane, on the following dates- 14.1 1.1975; 5.12.1975; 29.1.1976; 5.3.1976; 15.4.1976; 21.5.1976; 25.6.1976; 16.12.1976; 28.1.1977; 11.3.1977 and 20.5.1977; plus one meeting held in Townsville on 22.4. 1 977. South Australian Committee: Ten meetings, all held in Adelaide, on the following dates- 14.1 1.1975; 22.12.1975; 16.2.1976; 8.4.1976; 24.5.1976; 28.6.1976; 13.12.1976; 14.2.1977; 14.3.1977 and 18.4.1977. Western Australian Committee: Twelve meetings, all held in Perth, on the following dates-10.12.1975; 9.2.1976; 22.3.1976; 9.4.1976; 31.5.1976; 21.6.1976; 2.12.1976; 1 3. 1 2. 1 976; 7.2. 1 977; 1 4.3. 1 977; 27.4. 1 977 and 30.5. 1977. Tasmanian Committee: Seven meetings, held in Hobart, on the following dates- 17.12.1975; 9.4.1976; 12.5.1976; 8.12.1976; 2.2.1977; 9.3.1977 and 1 1.5.1977; plus one meeting held in Launceston on 20.4. 1 977. {:#subdebate-41-60} #### Mr Henry Wiley Fancher (Question No. 622) {: #subdebate-41-60-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP am asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many loan proposals did **Mr Henry** Wiley Fancher put to the Government early in 1976 *(Hansard,* 3 1 March 1977, page 882). 1. Who were the third parties through whom **Mr Fancher** put each proposal. 2. 3 ) On what dates did they put each proposal. 3. What were the amounts, terms, conditions, interest rates and commissions in each proposal. 4. 5 ) In what respects did each of the proposals fail to meet the guidelines set out in his press statement of 17 December 1975. 5. When he recommended **Mr Fancher** to the Federal and State Parliamentary Leaders of the Liberal and National Country Parties on 2 November 1 975, did he know that Mt Mulgrave Pty Ltd, a company in which **Mr Fancher** held all the shares, had gone into liquidation on 5 August 1975. 6. When did he learn: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. that Yarraden Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd, which **Mr Fancher** had incorporated, went into liquidation on 16 June 1976, 1. that a judgment was entered against **Mr Fancher** in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 2 June 1 976, 2. that a bankruptcy notice in respect of that judgment was served on **Mr Fancher** on 5 August 1 976, 3. that a petition in bankruptcy was presented against **Mr Fancher** on 28 October 1 976 and 4. that a sequestration order was made against the estate of **Mr Fancher** on 16 December 1976. 7. On what occasions and at what addresses have former or present members of his staff met **Mr Fancher.** 8. Have former or present members of his staff themselves or through others: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. sent communications to **Mr Fancher** or 1. received communications from him. {: #subdebate-41-60-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answers to the honourable gentleman's questions are as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Two. 1. It is not normal practice to disclose publicly the names of particular individuals or companies from whom loan proposals are received or other details of such proposals. Generally, those putting forward loan proposals would regard these as being confidential and would not expect that confidence to be breached by the Government. 2. 6January 1976 and 12 January 1976. {: type="i" start="4"} 0. (i) 6 January proposal. The amount was unspecified but of the order of 'two to three billion dollars'. The terms and conditions were not specified nor was any mention of a commission. The interest rate was stated to be 7.5 per cent. In a related phone call by **Mr Fancher** to a senior Treasury official on 10 January **Mr Fancher** said the interest rate would be 7.5 per cent for 10 years, and that 'charges' would be 0.25 per cent. He also made reference to 'brokerage' and an emission of 98 per cent'. He also mentioned an amount of $ 1,000m. 1. 12 January proposal This proposal was directly related to the earlier one. The amount was $800m, the interest rate 7.5 per cent simple interest for 10 years with no mention made of commissions. A condition of the proposal was that a letter of intent should be issued by the Government. 2. Neither of the proposals conformed with the guidelines in a number of respects, especially in relation to the requirement to disclose the principal lenders in order that the Government could, should it wish to, verify independently the existence and availability of the funds and to verify previous loan transactions effected by those principals. The 12 January proposal was ruled out automatically, in accordance with my press statement of 17 December 1975 because it suggested, *inter alia,* the Government issue a letter of intent. For the information of the honourable gentleman set out below are the guidelines implemented by the present Government against which all unsolicited offers of loan funds have been assessed: 3. General. All matters relating to borrowings by the Australian Government are subject to the Treasurer's authority, and no person has authority to do anything in relation to these matters without authorisation by the Treasurer. Any unsolicited offer of loan funds to the Australian Government will be automatically rejected unless it complies strictly with the procedures set out in (2) and (3) below. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Preconditions to be met. The following preconditions must be satisfied by the offeror before any unsolicited loan proposal could be considered by the Australian Government. The principal lender or lenders must be identified at the outset. The Government reserves at all times the right to investigate the standing and reputation of the principal(s) through any channels it might select. Positive assurances are required by the Government from a reputable bank or established underwriting group of its own choosing that the loan funds referred to in the proposal are available and would be freely transferable to the Australian Government. Assurances are required that the funds in question would not be available to the Government through borrowing channels it already utilises. The Government would deal directly with the principal and would not give authority for any other person or group to act on its behalf in any negotiations which might eventuate. Agreement would have to be given to disclose the name of the principal to Parliament and to the public. The documentation provided covering such a loan must be wholly acceptable to the Government, and be consistent with its legal and other requirements. The Government would require details, complete with documentation, of any other loans raised for Government or leading corporate borrowers, by both the named principals) and the offeror. Full details of the commission or other payments sought by the offeror would be required. No request for a mandate, 'letter of identification' or other similar documents would be considered by the Government In the event that the offeror meets all the above preconditions it would still remain for the Government to decide whether it wished to undertake a borrowing. If so, the offer would be considered against other proposals made to the Government. Any decision to proceed would also be contingent on legislative authority being available and authority From the Australian Loan Council being obtained beforehand. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Submission of Loan Offers. All unsolicited loan offers must in the first instance be put in writing and directed to: The First Assistant Secretary, Revenue Loans & Investment Division, Department of the Treasury, Parkes, A.C.T. 2600 Any offer submitted must also, if it is to be considered further, contain, at the outset, written details of the informaton required from the offeror under each of the preconditions as set out under ( 2 ) above. I remind the honourable gentleman that the network of intermediaries and con-men that was involved in his Government's clandestine attempts to borrow massive amounts of money from overseas was built up, not only because of the desire of his Government to deceive the Australian public, but also because the administrative arrangements which were then in force were not being observed by Ministers. I particularly draw his attention to that part of the guidelines that makes it explicit that any decision to proceed with overseas borrowings by the present Government is contingent on legislative authority being available and authority from the Australian Loan Council being obtained beforehand. As he is well aware, the legal and constitutional requirements in respect of overseas borrowings were deliberately flouted by his Government {: type="1" start="6"} 0. When the name of **Mr Fancher** was raised in the meeting to which the honourable gentleman refers as a person who might have knowledge of some of the improprieties and illegalities attached to the then Government's loan raising activities, the particular circumstances of Mount Mulgrave Pty Ltd were not known to me. 1. A number of press reports have been drawn to my attention concerning the financial circumstances of **Mr Fancher.** I have also been advised by my Depatrment that **Mr Fancher** was reported as being a director of a company called Mount Mulgrave Pty Ltd which was wound up on 23 October 1975 on the petition of Mobil Oil for the sum of $2,031.36. 2. I am informed that no former or present member of my staff has met **Mr Fancher.** 3. I am informed that prior to 11 November 1975 **Mr Fancher** made a number of such communications by telephone. {:#subdebate-41-61} #### Mr John Francis Licardy (Question No. 623) {: #subdebate-41-61-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP am asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did he tell me on 3 1 March 1977 *(Hansard,* page 882 ) that he had not received communications himself or through others from a Sydney solicitor, **Mr John** Francis Licardy. 1. Did he in fact receive on 27 October 1975 a letter from **Mr Licardy** dated 24 October 1975 and send copies of that letter to Senators O 'Byrne, Wriedt, Withers, DrakeBrockman, Hall and Bunton. 2. Can he now recall receiving himself or through others any other communications from **Mr Licardy** or sending communications himself or through others to **Mr Licardy.** 3. When did he learn that on or before 6 June 1975 **Mr Licardy** had failed to comply with the requirements of the Legal Practitioners Act and the Solicitors Trust Fund Regulations and had appropriated very large sums of clients' money for his own use and that at the time he received and forwarded **Mr Licardy** 's letter of 27 October 1975 **Mr Licardy** had again misappropriated a very considerable amount from his clients. 4. When did he learn that the Solicitors' Statutory Committee had found that **Mr Licardy** was unfitted to be a solicitor or to be employed in a solicitor's office and had ordered his name to be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. 5. Does he now consider it appropriate to state on what occasions and at what addresses members of his own staff were involved with this solicitor who had been and was still engaged in such disgraceful and dishonourable practices and scandalous activities. 6. Have former or present members of his staff themselves or through others: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. sent communications to **Mr Licardy** or 1. b) received communications from him. {: #subdebate-41-61-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answers to the honourable gentleman's questions are as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) to (3) lt is common knowledge that **Mr Khemlani's** request to me to facilitate an appearance by him at the Barof the Senate was put in a letter signed by his legal adviser and subsequently forwarded by me to appropriate senators, including the then President of the Senate. No doubt the Leader of the Government in the Senate at that time would have given him full details. If the honourable gentleman wishes to take this as being a communication from **Mr Licardy** to me and, in the context of action taken under the Legal Practitioners Act, to infer that some impropriety was involved, then I invite him to do so. I remind him, however, that information obtained from documentation in **Mr Khemlani's** possession, and to which **Mr Licardy** had access, led him to dismiss a Minister of his Government who had not only held responsibility for the then portfolio of Minerals and Energy but who had also acted as Prime Minister in the honourable gentleman's absence. I also remind him that his Government negotiated on an official basis with **Mr Khemlani** and subsequently employed him to arrange an overseas borrowing of US$4 billion. Presumably the honourable gentleman had confidence, not only in **Mr Khemlani,** but also in those individuals retained by him, including legal advisers, in pursuance of the then Government's overseas borrowing policies. Finally I mention that **Mr Khemlani's** sworn statement presented to the Senate on 4 November 1 975 gave a detailed account of the honourable gentleman 's extensive personal involvement in negotiations being carried out by **Mr Khemlani** including, *inter alia,* arrangements for payment of commission by avoidance of legal requirements. I am not aware that the honourable gentleman has ever demonstrated that the sworn evidence given by **Mr Khemlani** is incorrect insofar as it concerns his actions as Prime Minister. 1. and (5) When reading or hearing media statements about him after they occurred. 2. and (7) I have nothing to add to my previous advice on this subject. I find it supremely ironic that the honourable member should be seeking such information from me when he still refuses to make a full disclosure of the scandalous activities of his Government in its dealings with a network of intermediaries and con-men. Repatriation Pensioners in Hughes, Cook and Cunningham Electoral Divisions (Question No. 701) {: #subdebate-41-61-s2 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 26 April 1977: >How many persons in the electoral divisions of Hughes, Cook and Cunningham receive pensions from the Department of Veterans' Affairs and how many persons are receiving each type of pension. {: #subdebate-41-61-s3 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >There are 2850 people in the division of Hughes, 4341 in Cook and 2269 in Cunningham in receipt of pensions from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The numbers of persons in receipt of each kind of pension are shown in the table below. It should be noted that some pensioners are in receipt of more than one type of pension. Repatriation Pensioners in Victorian Municipalities (Question No. 720) {: #subdebate-41-61-s4 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many citizens in the Victorian municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick are estimated or known to be receiving (a) a service pension and (b) other forms of repatriation benefits. 1. How many (a) females and (b) males referred to in part ( 1 ) are receiving benefits and will the Minister provide a break up of each of the various categories of benefits received. {: #subdebate-41-61-s5 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (l)(a)924. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Payments of pensions other than service pensions are as follows: These figures are not exclusive and one pensioner may be in receipt of more than one type of pension including a service pension. The total number of pensioners in these municipalities is 3018 comprising 1417 veterans and 1601 wives, widows and dependants. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Repatriation statistics do not differentiate between male and female members of the Forces and the term 'veteran' in (1) includes female veterans. The number of females coming into this category in the municipalities of Broadmeadows, Coburg and Brunswick would be small. Repatriation Pensioners in Calare Electoral Division (Question No. 733) {: #subdebate-41-61-s6 .speaker-KKT} ##### Mr MacKenzie: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 1 977: >How many persons in the electoral division of Calare receive pensions from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and how many persons are receiving each type of pension. {: #subdebate-41-61-s7 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >There are 2306 persons in the electoral division of Calare who receive pensions from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The numbers of persons in receipt of each kind of pension are shown in the table below. It should be noted that some pensioners are in receipt of more than one type of pension. {:#subdebate-41-62} #### Importation of Radio Transceivers (Question No. 736) {: #subdebate-41-62-s0 .speaker-5J4} ##### Mr Scholes: asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 27 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What restrictions exist on the entry of radio transceivers for sale in Australia. 1. How many transceivers have been imported in each of the last 12 months. 2. Are importers required to show that these sets are to be used for a legal purpose. {: #subdebate-41-62-s1 .speaker-ZD4} ##### Mr Howard:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. None. 1. The Australian Statistician has advised it is not possible to provide information on the number of radio transceivers imported into Australia. Not all kinds of radio transceivers are recorded separately in Australian import statistics, and for those kinds of transceivers that are recorded separately, details of number imported are not recorded. The values of imports of these kinds of equipment during the latest available 12 months were- The figures shown for the months July 1976-February 1977 are preliminary and subject to revision. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. No. {:#subdebate-41-63} #### RAAF Deployment at Butterworth, Malaysia (Question No. 747) {: #subdebate-41-63-s0 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice, on 27 April 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he say in Kuala Lumpur on 22 April 1977, as reported by Australian Associated Press, that the Australian Government was not immediately planning any review of the existing deployment to the Royal Malaysian Air Force base, Butterworth, of two Mirage squadrons of the RAAF. 1. If so, did his statement mean that no consideration is currently being given to the re-deployment of any of these aircraft back to Australia. 2. In view of the present strategic environment, does he consider that the deployment to two RAAF squadrons to Butterworth remains relevant to the needs of both Malaysia and Australia and relevant to the realities of the region. 3. Does the Government consider that the RAAF squadrons should be available to assist the armed forces of Malaysia or Singapore in the event of external aggression against either country. 4. Is it considered that any significant armed attack would be likely to involve substantial internal security operations. 5. Would Australia's assistance in repelling such armed attack be contrary to the principle of non-involvement in internal security operations declared by successive Australian Governments. {: #subdebate-41-63-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP -- The answers to the honourable member's questions are: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) At a meeting with pressmen on 2 1 April, following the Foreign Minister's arrival at Kuala Lumpur, he replied to a question that the Australian Government's policy on the RAAF deployment at Butterworth remained unchanged. 1. No. 2. Yes. 3. The participants in the Five Power Arrangements in the Ministerial communique issued on 16 April 1971 "declared, in relation to the external defence of Malaysia and Singapore that in the event of any form of armed attack externally organised or supported or the threat of such attack against Malaysia or Singapore, their Governments would immediately consult together for the purpose of deciding what measures should be taken jointly or separately in relation to such attack or threat". 4. and (6) The Government's attitude would be governed by the circumstances at the time. {:#subdebate-41-64} #### Defence Service Homes Scheme (Question No. 897) {: #subdebate-41-64-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to reports that the Defence Service Homes Scheme is to be abolished; if so, are the reports accurate. 1. Is the Department of Veterans' Affairs presently engaged in negotiations to sell land held for the Defence Service Homes Schemes to building societies and State housing authorities. 2. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to reports of the growing discontent and lack of morale of the staff of the Department as a result of the uncertainty with regard to the future of the Defence Service Homes Scheme and also because of the large number of unfilled positions within the Department and the seemingly non-existent promotion prospects for most officers. {: #subdebate-41-64-s1 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) I am aware of recent reports that the Defence Service Homes Scheme is to be abolished. The reports are not accurate. 1. No. 2. 1 understand that during June uncertainties associated with the structure and staffing of the Defence Service Homes Organisation, following the recent transfer of this responsibility to my Department, should be resolved generally to the satisfaction of the staff. {:#subdebate-41-65} #### Community Youth Support Scheme (Question No. 905) {: #subdebate-41-65-s0 .speaker-L6X} ##### Mr Garrick: asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 25 May 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have funds for the Community Youth Support Scheme been frozen pending pre-Budget deliberations. 1. How many schemes in Victoria have been approved in principle but are awaiting a Cabinet decision before they are funded. 2. Can he say whether there are still quite a number of groups intending to apply for CYSS funding. 3. Can he also say whether a group in Northcote is hopeful that a public meeting on 9 June 1977 will initiate proposals for funding. 4. As 482 young people are unemployed in the area serviced by the Northcote Commonwealth Employment Service Office, does this cause a problem of dimensions serious enough to warrant a Community Youth Support Scheme. 5. Is it a fact that the ratio of job vacancies to young unemployed persons runs at over SO to 1 against those out of work in Northcote. {: #subdebate-41-65-s1 .speaker-KVM} ##### Mr Street:
LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. However the continuation of the Scheme into 1977-78 was reviewed by the Government in the context of its pre-Budget deliberations, and it has been agreed to continue the Scheme pending a further review to be completed by 3 1 December 1977. 1. Nil. 2. No, but applications have been received at a consistent rate since the Scheme 's inception. 3. No. 4. 5 ) At the end of April 1 977 there were 45 1 young people registered as unemployed at the Northcote Office of the Commonwealth Employment Service. This does cause a problem of dimensions serious enough to warrant a Community Youth Support Scheme program. 5. Yes. Overseas Travel by Public Servants (Question No. 1021) {: #subdebate-41-65-s2 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 1 June 1 977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the name and classification of each officer of his department who travelled overseas or is scheduled to travel overseas during the periods (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 30 June 1976 and (b) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 on duties associated with (i) overseas visits by the Prime Minister, (ii) overseas visits by him, (iii) overseas visits by any other Ministers and (iv) overseas visits for any other purpose. 1. What charges were made against his department's estimates in respect of each of those officers under the categories listed in part ( 1 ) by way of (a) cost of travel, (b) cost of accommodation and (c) other costs. 2. What amounts were recovered or are to be recovered from other departments in respect of those officers, and in respect of what activities by those officers on behalf of other departments were the amounts recovered or are expected to be recovered. 3. Were funds set aside in the department's estimates in each of the relevant periods for expenditure of this nature; if so, what were the amounts provided and what were the division and subdivision numbers. 4. If funds were not set aside in the department's estimates, from what source were the expenditures paid showing division and subdivision numbers. 5. From whom were the requests for duties to be carried out on behalf of other departments, including the Prime Minister's Department, received and when. {: #subdebate-41-65-s3 .speaker-ID4} ##### Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) to (6) I refer the honourable member to the information provided by the Prime Minister in his answer to Question No. 1003, House of Representatives weekly *Hansard* for 2 June 1977. Overseas Travel by Public Servants (Question No. 1027) {: #subdebate-41-65-s4 .speaker-HI4} ##### Mr Morris: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 1 June 1977: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the name and classification of each officer of the Department of Veterans' Affairs who travelled overseas or is scheduled to travel overseas during the periods (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 30 June 1976 and (b) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 on duties associated with (i) overseas visits by the Prime Minister, (ii) overseas visits by the Minister, (iii) overseas visits by any other Ministers and (iv) overseas visits for any other purpose. 1. What charges were made against the estimates for the Department of Veterans' Affairs in respect of each of those officers under the categories listed in part ( 1 ) by way of (a) cost of travel, ( b ) cost of accommodation and ( c ) other costs. 2. What amounts were recovered or are to be recovered from other departments in respect of those officers, and in respect of what activities by those officers on behalf of other departments were the amounts recovered or are expected to be recovered. 3. Were funds set aside in the Department's estimates in each of the relevant periods for expenditure of this nature; if so, what were the amounts provided and what were the division and subdivision numbers. 4. If funds were not set aside in the Department's estimates, from what source were the expenditures paid showing division and subdivision numbers. 5. From whom were the requests for duties to be carried out on behalf of other departments, including the Prime Minister's Department received and when. {: #subdebate-41-65-s5 .speaker-JVV} ##### Mr Newman:
LP -- The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister's answer to question No. 1003.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 2 June 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1977/19770602_reps_30_hor105/>.