House of Representatives
3 May 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

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

page 1687

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

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

Pensioners: Home Maintenance Loans

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

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a further term of at least 3 years the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974-77, renewed for one year expiring on 30 June 1 978.

The demand for dwellings has not slackened as the waiting list (all States) of 12,060 single and 4,120 couples as at 30 June 1977, showeth.

Your petitioners respectfully draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing 1975 under the Chairmanship of the Rev. K.. Seaman (now Governor of South Australia) which recommended additional funds to State housing authorities to meet the demand for low-rental accommodation in the proportion of $4 for $ 1 with the proviso that the States do not reduce their existing expenditure and

That the Act include married pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance and migrants as specified by the Seaman Report and that particular consideration be paid to the special needs and requirements of the prospective tenants in the location and design of such dwellings.

Furthermore, your petitioners desire to draw the Government’s attention to the hardship of many pensioner home owners caused by the high cost of maintenance.

The Social Security Annual Report 1976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to establish a fund whereby loans can be made to means tested pensioners for the purpose of effecting necessary maintenance to their homes. Such a loan to be at minimal interest rates sufficient to cover administrative costs and to be repaid by the estate upon the death of a single pensioner before probate or upon the death of the surviving spouse in the case of married pensioners or where two pensioners jointly own the dwelling. Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Armitage, Mr Dobie, Dr Edwards, Dr Jenkins, Mr Keating, Mr Les McMahon, Mr Neil and MrO’Keefe.

Petitions received.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members and ex-members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. On 14 February 1975, the then Australian Government deprived the Officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the citizen forces:
  2. The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the citizen forces in that it recognises the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services:
  3. This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their sparetime outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia:
  4. The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognised by the present Government as a valuable- and cost-effective -component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivaton which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces:
  5. Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decoratons and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (CMF) and the RAAF Citizens Air Force. by Mr Hurford and Mr Shipton.

Petitions received.

Public Libraries

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the people of Australia need and deserve a public library service of a high and uniform standard. The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries clearly documents the inadequacies and inequalities of the present provision. Many Australians have no access to free public library service at all.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will announce at the earliest opportunity its support in principle of the recommendatons of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries, and in particular those recommendations relating to the federal government’s funding role in public library provision.

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

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

  1. That the Federal Government recognise land rights in the State, such as Queensland, in a similar manner, to the recognition of land rights in the Northern Territory that is enact an Aboriginal Land Rights Act;
  2. That the Federal Government support the abolition of the Aboriginal Act (Queensland) 1971 and the Torres Strait Islanders Act (Queensland) 1971 and take such action as they may deem necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Queensland Discrimination Laws Act 1975 and Racial Discrimination Act 1975 be enforced in so far as they relate to Aborigines and Islanders;
  3. That the Federal Government assume responsibility for Aboriginal affairs in Queensland under the powers given them by the Referendum of 1967. The State Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement of Queensland should be abolished, and Aboriginal and Islander Reserves in Queensland should have the choice to be self governed with local government status.

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

Petition received.

Social Security Payments

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 distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Price Index months after goods and services have risen, and that many medications, formerly a pharmaceutical benefit, must now be paid for.

In addition, State Housing Authority waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners become never less, and funeral costs increase ever greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically on announcement of increases in the quarterly Consumer Price Index.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.

The State Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974, eroded by inflation, be updated and increased to overcome the back-log.

The funeral benefit be updated to 60 per cent of a reasonable funeral cost. This benefit, when introduced in 1943 at 200 shillings ($20.00), was seven times the pension at that time of 27 shillings ($2.70) per week, OR more than twice the basic wage of 97 shillings ($9.70)

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

Petition received.

Hughes Electoral Division: Aged Persons Hostel

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 surveys reveal a substantial percentage of adults over the age of 55 years in the Loftus-Engadine- Heathcote and Waterfall areas of the Hughes electorate, are in urgent need of special housing and nursing home accommodation.

  1. That many families in the area are experiencing difficulty in the placing of their aged parents in suitable nursing care; many cases having to be placed in care many kilometres from their families and consequently causing great strain on the relatives concerned.
  2. That this problem is aggravated by this area’s geographical and public transport isolation from the rest of the Sutherland Shire.
  3. That Government subsidised nursing homes in other parts of the Hughes and Cook electorate have long waiting-lists and in fact, have closed their lists to further inquirers.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will:

  1. Acknowledge that there is a need for the construction of an aged persons complex in this area as already acknowledged by the Federal-State Co-ordinating Committee for Nursing Home accommodation in N.S.W.
  2. Take immediate action to provide sufficient funds in the current financial year to finance the construction and maintenance of an aged-persons complex, providing hostel and nursing bed accommodation in this area.

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

Petition received.

Medical Insurance

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, in the interest of all Australians, the present compulsory medical insurance requirement be revoked forthwith on the grounds that:

  1. Because of this insurance being compulsory, the fee for this service has risen uncontrolled out of all proportion.
  2. Because of this insurance being compulsory, the fees for doctors’ consultations have risen uncontrolled out of all proportion.
  3. Because of this insurance being compulsory, the doctors no longer are willing to offer a cure after one consultation only, as they logically make more money after three or more consultations.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that we, as freedom loving Australians should be allowed the freedom of choice as to whether or not we wish to have medical insurance.

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

Petition received.

Communism

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

That the citizens of Australia totally reject communism and call upon the Government to:

  1. Ban all communist organisations, and
  2. Prohibit all communists from holding office in all industrial organisations, government departments, and in Parliament.

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

Petition received.

Television: Warburton Area

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

Whereas:

  1. Since the introduction of television into Australia twenty-two years ago, one half of the residents in the township of Warburton in Victoria have not been able to receive a viewable picture.
  2. The Community Television Antenna System (CTAS) could be introduced into the Warburton area to remove this inability and provide television to all those wishing to view that means of community education and entertainment.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia per medium of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications give all directions to ensure the installation of all equipment necessary to instal CTAS or such other means to produce television viewing for the citizens of Warburton.

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

Petition received.

Sales Tax

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

  1. . That Sales Tax is a major inflator of prices.
  2. That in country areas, Sales Tax is paid on freight.
  3. That Dr Jim Cairns was the only recent Federal Treasurer to reduce prices, by cutting the Sales Tax on motor vehicles in half.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled take action immediately to drastically reduce Sales Tax in order to reduce prices and reduce inflation.

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

Petition received.

Weedicides

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

Whereas:

  1. We believe that harmful effects may flow from the indiscriminate use of the weedicides 2, 4-D + 245T if that is used as an aerial spray, and
  2. Insufficient evidence is available to State and Local Government authorities on the harmful effects of this chemical.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled take immediate action to obtain and publicise all relevant facts relating to these weedicides.

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

Petition received.

Nursing Course

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

  1. That the Community Health Diploma Nursing Course at Preston Institute of Technology has been deferred because of lack of funding.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that funding and approval for this course be made available without further delay.

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

Petition received.

Nursing Profession: Tertiary Education

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

  1. That no provision of funding exists for tertiary education for the Nursing profession.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure that adequate funding for tertiary education for the Nursing profession be made available as a matter of urgency.

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

Petition received.

Export of Blood to Cook Islands

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

That we do not believe that the Minster for Health has the right to withhold supplies of blood which are donated unconditionally and in some cases, specifically for Australian patients at Cook Islands. Furthermore we believe that blood supplies to Australian patients in any country of the world should not be withheld as this life giving service is rightfully theirs as Australian Citizens.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the ban on the export of blood to the Cook Islands Clinic be lifted immediately so that blood tranfusions will be available to Australian Cancer Patients. by Mr Staley.

Petition received.

National Family Policy

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

That ‘The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State’.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government initiate a national family policy and use the concept of family impact statements as a means of highlighting family needs.

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

Petition received.

page 1690

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1690

QUESTION

RETRENCHMENTS BY CHRYSLER AUSTRALIA

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Prime Minister noted an announcement this morning by Chrysler of South Australia, one of Australia’s largest motor vehicle manufacturers, that it would be retrenching 1,100 employees? What urgent action will the Government take to prevent this from happening?

Mr Hayden:

– Does the Government think that is funny?

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

– I do not know how much pleasure the Leader of the Opposition gets from helping to establish circumstances in which the credibility of a major corporation is involved and doing a great deal of damage to an industry in a particular State- an action that was condemned by the company and by the Labor Government in South Australia. I believe also that the call of the Leader of the Opposition for a reduction in sales tax is designed to reduce current sales of automobiles and, therefore, to increase problems in the industry.

page 1690

QUESTION

LIVE SHEEP EXPORTS

Mr COTTER:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Prime Minister a question. I refer to the dispute surrounding the shipment of live sheep, particularly from Western Australia. During the dispute was an approach made by the Western Australian Government to the Federal Government for assistance? What form did this approach take? Was the Federal Government prepared to provide any assistance? What form of assistance was planned? Was the Premier of Western Australia told that assistance would be forthcoming if needed?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-There was communication between the Premier of Western Australia and myself and also with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on this particular issue. Throughout the dispute consultation and co-operation were close and continuous. We supported the Western Australian Government in its actions under our legislationunder section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. There was an occasion when we would have supported the Western Australian Government in court in relation to an injunction, but I think one injunction had already been granted and it was believed that there was no point in pursuing a further junction. Our willingness to support the Western Australian Government in public outside the court or in court was quite undoubted.

There were other discussions at a particular point about the difficulty of a certain situation which was of a passing nature and the Premier knew that full support would be available from the Commonwealth within its resources. Statements by me and by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations made the attitude of the Commonwealth very plain. We were standing by the legislation that we had passed. We were glad that the legislation did quite clearly have a role in the settlement of the totality of the dispute. That also ought to be noted. If the amendments to the Act had not been introduced, the actions that the State Government and other people had taken under the legislation could not have been encompassed. So we were opening the door to action that could properly be taken by the State Government itself, but we were also supporting that action, and supporting it strongly.

The greatest contribution to Western Australia and South Australia and to the sheep industry as a whole was by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in his long and painstaking discussions and negotiations which established a circumstance in which that trade can and will continue without bans and without difficultya trade that means so much to the future of the industry. Also, of course, it established the very important principle that no one organisation or group should have a right to determine what other people can sell, or the nature and direction of Australia’s trade, especially when it is of such economic importance. What the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has done behind the scenes in relation to that dispute probably will never be fully or properly recorded. Let me say only that every producer and every farmer owes a great deal to his efforts in achieving the final result. I am certain that the Premier of Western Australia recognises what I have said, and recognises the full and forthcoming co-operation that was pursued by the Western Australian and Federal Governments in relation to this matter.

page 1690

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Dr BLEWETT:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Did the Prime Minister note yesterday that the honourable member for Kingston, speaking for the Government and on behalf of the Prime Minister in the House, said -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Kingston yesterday moved a motion of bis own accord. It is not correct to attribute a purpose other than the honourable member’s own purpose to a motion moved in the House.

Dr BLEWETT:

– I will correct that. Speaking in the censure motion debate yesterday, he said: Motor vehicle manufacture in Australia is basically sound and is improving its position’: ‘The Government’s policies are correct and are leading to prosperity in the industry’: and also: Chrysler is establishing a sound base of operations for the next decade. It faces the future with confidence’. In view of the announcement by Chrysler of South Australia that 1,100 employees will be retrenched in the course of this year, does the Prime Minister share the views put forward by the honourable member for Kingston?

Mr MACPHEE:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

– The Chrysler company has informed the Government of its decision. It made a commercial decision.

Mr Young:

– When?

Mr MACPHEE:

– Just before it made it public. As a matter of courtesy, the company informed the Government this morning prior to making its public announcement. The important point to be recognised is that this company has no doubts about its future viability in the market place.

Mr Hayden:

– I will bet.

Mr MACPHEE:

– No thanks to the Leader of the Opposition. Some of the reasons for the decision are the rationalisation of its production line, the introduction of new technology, and the success of the Sigma, which in fact requires fewer employees working on it than do other models of vehicles produced by the company. It is a direct response by the company to its position in the market place that has led to this decision. It is a decision that the company heralds as being important for its future viability and it looks forward to the future with confidence.

page 1691

QUESTION

SALE OF URANIUM TO IRAN

Mr PORTER:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I understand that an Iranian delegation is at present in Canberra seeking to purchase Australian uranium. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether Australia intends to sell uranium to Iran?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-A senior Iranian delegation is in Canberra for discussions on uranium and also to undertake negotiations on a bilateral safeguards agreement. Those negotiations are continuing at the moment. As has been noted in an Australian Financial Review article, Iran is a party to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Iran has a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency covering all of its nuclear activities. This is the latest in a series of negotiations with other countries on nuclear safeguards. The basis of the negotiations is the safeguards policy statement which I made in this House on 24 May 1977, almost a year ago. The key principles set out in that statement are the very firm basis of our policy, and they are not negotiable and will not be changed. Before any agreement or contracts can be finalised with Iran, or with any other country for that matter, a bilateral safeguards agreement incorporating those principles will need to be in place. I hope that the discussions and arrangements with Iran will proceed in a constructive and forthcoming manner because Australia is in a position to be a secure and long-term supplier and, as I understand it, Iran has a need for a secure source of uranium for its development of energy for peaceful purposes.

page 1691

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Mr HAYDEN:

-The Prime Minister will recall that in answer to a question from the Opposition a few minutes ago he suggested that comments I made but a fortnight ago today about the motor vehicle industry had a great deal of influence on the decision announced today by Chrysler of South Australia. Putting to one side the conflict between that statement and the statement made by the Minister for Productivity a few seconds ago, I now ask the Prime Minister whether he recalls saying yesterday in the Parliament:

I am quite certain that recent sales by a notable motor manufacturer in South Australia would not be affected by statements by the Leader of the Opposition . . .

Has the Prime Minister stood on his head on this matter overnight, because he neither understands nor comprehends the disastrous consequences of the Government ‘s economic policy?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman may ask a question; he may not argue the issue.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Leader of the Opposition likes to predict gloom within this Parliament and within this country.

Mr Hayden:

– Right every time.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The honourable gentleman says that he is right every time. I suggest that he should wait a little while and see what happens in the course of today. No person has been wrong more often than the Leader of the Opposition in relation to economic matters about which he pretends to take some pride. We need go only to his own sorry but brief record as

Treasurer. The promise in the Budget he introduced in relation to tax reform and other matters was regarded as one of the greatest cheats perpetrated on the taxpayers of this country that Australia has ever seen. It has taken the reforms of this Government to overcome that matter.

Mr Hayden:

– I rise on a point of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-If the honourable gentleman does not like listening to the answer, he does not have to do so.

Mr Hayden:

– I do not mind at all. I merely want to help the Prime Minister to apply himself to the question. I asked him to discuss die motor car industry and the disastrous consequences that the Government has had upon that industry. I can understand why he is trying to avoid that.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

page 1692

QUESTION

UNITED STATES BEEF MARKET

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Trade and Resources seen reports which suggest that Australia could lose some if its share of the United States beef market as a result of alleged mismanagement by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation? Has he seen also claims of a large black market in meat export entitlements? Can the Minister tell the House whether there is any substance in these allegations?

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

-Shipments of meat to the United States have been running ahead of schedule this year. We have a full entitlement of 301,000 tonnes. At the rate at which it is being shipped we could have a period at the end of the year when there would not be an available meat market left. As a result of this, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation had the difficult task of deciding what action should be taken. It made a decision that 45,000 tonnes ought to be reserved for the latter part of this year to ensure that there was not just a complete and absolute collapse of the Australian market, which would have been a situation even worse than the one we have at the moment. Trading has been going on in the entitlements which people earn to ship meat to the United States market. These entitlements are earned as a result of selling other meats on low price markets. Entitlements therefore are worth something and have been traded ever since the entitlements scheme was brought in several years ago.

I think it is fair to say that a great deal of concern is now developing as to the value of these entitlements which are being traded. I am told that the price of these entitlements has gone from about 10c or 1 5c per lb in about February of this year to 30c per lb, and now some are as high as 50c per lb, which is quite incredible. Although the degree to which these entitlements are being traded is not known, it is fair enough to say that those prices are being paid by somebody. If there is a detrimental effect in the saleyards as a result of people discounting the value they have to pay for these entitlements, it means that the producer is actually paying. I do not think anybody can tolerate that situation. I am told that as a result of complaints that have been made the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation is reviewing the whole situation to see what reforms can be brought about. I think it is fair enough to say that there are concern and discontent and that some answer needs to be found to this question if it is causing further depression of the meat prices that exist at the moment.

page 1692

QUESTION

JAMAICA ECONOMIC AND TRADE MEETING

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I refer to his statement of 16 April in which he said he would be attending a high level meeting in Jamaica at the end of this month to discuss world trade and world economies. Can the honourable gentleman advise the House what other countries will be attending that meeting, what is the nature of the agenda and what particular commodities will be under discussion? Following the meeting, will the Prime Minister also be attending the Economic Summit Meeting in Bonn?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I think the honourable gentleman would know that the countries which have been involved in the Economic Summit Meeting over a period of some considerable time now have been selected on the basis of the size of their economies. Canada is the smallest economy which has been represented at those meetings. A number of countries have an economy whose gross national product is between that of Canada and that of Australia. Therefore, on the basis of that logic, if Australia were to be included a number of other countriesEuropean countries and I think one or two others- would also be involved. No move of which I am aware has been made in recent times to enlarge that summit meeting which is likely to be held, as I understand, in Bonn some time in June or maybe in July.

The meeting in Jamaica, which I understand was organised originally in discussions between Chancellor Schmidt and Prime Minister Manley, was to have been held to discuss in very large measure the matters which were covered in the broad base of the discussions which I had with the Prime Minister of Japan. Of the developed countries, Germany, Canada and Australia had been invited to attend. I indicated a willingness to attend that meeting on the basis that both Germany and Canada were also attending. It was thought that that would be the case. There is now some doubt about that and therefore some doubt about the meeting. I hope the meeting will still continue as I believe that informal discussions between heads of government from developed and developing nations are important, especially at the present time with the importance of the trade negotiations which will take place throughout this year. I think that so often when governments and government delegates get to formal discussions they are in rigid positions and it is hard to shift them. The purpose of the Manley-Schmidt initiative was to try to break through that position to a certain extent. Therefore it is an initiative that I think will be of advantage if it does in fact still come off, though there is some doubt about it.

page 1693

QUESTION

GROWTH IN WORLD ECONOMY

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is it true that higher growth in the world economy is a vital factor in achieving increased employment and better living standards not only in Australia but throughout the world? Would the benefits of such growth be dissipated if our present anti-inflationary policies were altered or relaxed? Are certain statements, suggesting that Australia is heading towards a recession if the present Government’s economic policies are pursued, exaggerated and incorrect?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I do agree that higher growth is vital for improved living standards and for lower unemployment, not only in Australia but also in many other countries around the world. If one were to try to buy higher growth at the price of increased inflation, as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report has pointed out, that is likely to be short-lived and result in a much less beneficial long term situation than would result, for example, with the continuation of the policies that Australia now has in place. That was the view of the OECD. Against that view Australia certainly intends to continue with the general thrust of its existing policies. These broad topics were the major thrust of the discussions in Japan, as the honourable member would know. It is agreed in Japan that there is need for action against higher protection. There is need for success at the Multilateral Trade Negotiations and in discussions between the developed and developing parts of the world.

I have seen reports that the Leader of the Opposition has continued to forecast gloom and despair over a long period. I do not think that does him much credit as basically his predictions have no credibility. I shall refer to some of them. On 2 1 January 1977 in the Australian the Leader of the Opposition was reported as predicting that inflation would run to at least IS per cent by June and 1 8 per cent or higher by the end of 1 977. The actual rate of inflation was 9.3 per cent at the end of December 1977. On that occasion the honourable gentleman was very far from the mark in his prediction which could only be designed to undermine confidence in Australia. On 20 October 1977, in a joint statement with the honourable member for Adelaide, one of the shadow Ministers, shadow Treasurers, shadow something or other- they seemed to proliferate in the Opposition at that time- he stated:

The September quarter CPI is a false dawn. The fight against inflation has made little progress in the last two years . . .

Of course, the false dawn was the false hope of the Leader of the Opposition. Nothing would have pleased him more than for that to have been a false dawn and not a reality as it is in fact and as every person in Australia knows, as a result of the figures that have been published subsequently and because of the general thrust of the Government’s policies. Indeed, it is worth noting that Australia ‘s performance in relation to inflation has been markedly better than that of many of the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. From 1975 to the present Australia’s rate of inflation has come down 6.9 per cent, the rate of inflation in the United States of America has fallen 2.8 per cent, in Germany it has fallen 2.3 per cent, in France it has fallen 2.S per cent and in Canada it has fallen 2. 1 per cent, making an OECD average of 3.3 per cent. Australia’s reduction in the inflation rate was much greater than that due to the policies of this Government and due to the reversal of the policies which the Leader of the Opposition was so avidly pursuing when he was in government.

On 1 December 1977 on Australian Broadcasting Commission radio the Leader of the Opposition indicated that the best the Government would be able to achieve in 1978 would be an inflation rate of between 10 and 11 per cent. Quite clearly that prediction is also already very wrong and very far off the mark. The OECD prediction for 1978 was 7.5 per cent. Indeed some forecasters are hopeful of an even better result than that. Also on 23 November 1977 the Leader of the Opposition was reported in the Australian Financial Review to have predicted that the calendar year 1978 would at best be a year of no economic growth and would at worst be a year of negative growth. Of course, the OECD forecastnot the Government’s forecast- for gross domestic product growth for 1978 is 3.25 per cent. It would be possible to find other forecasts made by the Leader of the Opposition scattered throughout his many statements. They are all false. They are all designed to undermine Australia and belittle the country and the constituency that in some way he is meant to represent.

page 1694

QUESTION

ECONOMY

Mr HAYDEN:

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister on the subject of personal forecasts. Unlike him, I have not had the opportunity to prepare material. However, let us exchange credentials. Does the Prime Minister remember when- I believe on 1 December last year but certainly December- a forecast which had been prepared by the Department of Trade reached the newspapers, showing that the deficit balance on current account would be of the order of $2, 500m? Does he remember belittling that forecast as being out of date and stating that the result would be much better? Is it a fact that the deficit balance on current account will be very close to $2, 500m by the completion of this financial year? Does he remember more recently making optimistic comments about the rise in retail sales in February and indicating that there would be a sustained improvement in retail sales? Has he noted today that retail sales fell in March by 0.5 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis? Finally, would the Prime Minister care for me to catalogue at greater leisure the vast range of not only wrong forecasts but also totally false assertions which he has made, especially at election time, in an effort to try quite dishonestly to obtain votes?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-Bellyaching Bill gives little credit to the Australian constituency. I think the people have demonstrated on more than one occasion when there has been dishonesty in government that that government reaps the reward. That is why the honourable gentleman is sitting on the Opposition side of the chamber and that is why the honourable gentle.man will stay on that side. I am advised by the Treasurer that, whatever the figures for March might have been, over the past three months retail sales have still been in an improved position. At the same time I think it ought to be noted that, as a result of the totality of the policies which the Government has been pursuing and despite the predictions of the Leader of the Opposition, the general overseas reserves position of Australia at the moment is a good deal stronger than it has been for quite some time. I have no doubt that under the policies of this Government our balance of payments in total will be in a thoroughly satisfactory position.

page 1694

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA-CHINA FOUNDATION

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– My question, which I direct to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, refers to an announcement he made the other day in answer to a question that the former Ambassador to China is likely to head an Australia-China foundation. Does the Minister know that the former Ambassador has repeatedly stated- a statement with which I agree- that an awareness of the Chinese view of the world is essential to any process of conducting negotiations with or seeking to understand China? Is he aware, however, that Dr Fitzgerald has never disavowed his support for that point of view? Nowhere does he deny it as valid although it is characterised by him as being a ‘Chinese form of MarxismLeninism’. Therefore, does the Minister consider that these are appropriate stances to take in an objective, disinterested post which the position of chairman of the Australia-China foundation should be?

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

-The book that the -

Mr Scholes:

– He is asking for a comment on the man’s character.

Mr PEACOCK:

-Not at all. The honourable member is not asking for that and I will defend him for the question he has asked.

Mr Bryant:

– The Minister -

Mr PEACOCK:

– The honourable member for Wills seeks to interject. He is out of his class and he knows it. I would keep quiet and not draw attention to myself if I were he.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Foreign Affairs will resume his seat. The honourable member for Wills will remain silent. It does nothing for the dignity of the House if the Minister responds to interjections in that fashion and it does nothing for the dignity of the House if a member as senior as the honourable member for Wills interjects and misuses the House by reading a newspaper in the chamber. .

Mr PEACOCK:

– I think it is rather unfair to suggest that a question of this nature relates directly to the character of a person. As I understood the question, which was directed to me without notice by the honourable member for Lilley, it asked, by way of reference to a number of quotations or books which draw conclusions of a philosophical attitude, if not more, but which are not related to character, whether I believed that the gentleman in question was a sufficiently objective person to serve on the proposed Australia-China council. I do not believe there need be any tacit or avowed reference to a person’s character when a question like that is asked.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I interrupt the Minister to inform him that if the question had been an attack on the character of the person named the question would have been ruled out of order.

Mr PEACOCK:

-Mr Speaker, far be it from me to judge your ruling but, with great respect, you did not make that comment at the time of the interjection. Perhaps I had to do it for you.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister for Foreign Affairs will withdraw that imputation.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I was answering the question in relation to the matter of objectivity.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will withdraw the imputation that he had to make a ruling on my behalf.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I certainly was not implying that I had to make any ruling on your behalf. On the contrary, I said that it was not necessary. If there was any imputation, naturally it is withdrawn. In the book that was referred to by the honourable member there are, of course, references to the progress that has been made in recent years in promoting Australia’s relationship with China, both before and after the LiberalNational Country Party Government took office in 1975. As I recall, Dr Fitzgerald notes that relations of good will on both sides between Australia and China were symbolised by the cordial reception of the visit by the Prime Minister to Peking in 1976. Within the framework of that favourable assessment Dr Fitzgerald makes comments and suggestions about the difficulties which he feels need to be tackled if the already very satisfactory relationship is to be strengthened. Whilst the Government and perhaps others interested in the development of our relations with China would not necessarily agree with everything Dr Fitzgerald had to say in his book, I am sure that honourable members on both sides of the House would agree that he served Australia in Peking in an energetic and professional manner and was a most competent representative. I would hope that that suggestion when analysed would be greeted with plaudits on both sides of the House. The developments now being announced during the visit of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to China flow from the very real groundwork laid by Dr Fitzgerald as Ambassador in Peking which was followed up by the extensive and outstanding work of his successor as Ambassador, Garry Woodard, who has worked extraordinarily hard to ensure that trade and other matters placed before the Chinese may be brought to fruition as successfully as they have been during the visit of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In short, I regard Dr Fitzgerald as an objective person so far as China is concerned and I would welcome his further contribution to AustralianChinese relations.

page 1695

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to serious concern within the Greek community over the treatment of people involved in inquiries into alleged social security frauds? Has any action been taken by the Government to ensure that authorities do not abuse the basic civil rights of people concerned in these inquiries? If any action has been taken to protect their civil rights, can he indicate to the House what it is?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The overwhelming majority of the Greek community and, indeed, of all ethnic communities, have added enormously to the value of Australian life. Many thousands, indeed millions, from other countries have found homes here, have contributed greatly to the economic strength of Australia, added to our cultural heritage and made this a much better nation as a result of their immigration or the immigration of their grandfathers, relatives or forebears to this country. I believe that the fact that certain events have occurred within one community should not for one moment cause this House or Australia to alter its very firm conviction that ethnic communities, including the Greek community, have added greatly and overwhelmingly to the value of Australian life.

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of all Australians agree that the law must be upheld where there are breaches of the law, where there is any suggestion of a fraud against the exchequer or against the revenue, for the improper gain of individuals. But if in the pursuit of such breaches there is any evidence of undue activity in one area or any suggestion of a denial of proper civil rights and liberties then I would certainly want to be given examples and that matter would be pursued quite vigorously.

page 1696

QUESTION

UNIVERSAL TEXTILES AUSTRALIA LTD

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

-Did the Acting Minister for Industry and Commerce chair in this building last night a three-hour meeting between myself, the honourable member for Franklin, three Tasmanian trade union leaders and representatives of Dunlop Australia Ltd with reference to the future of Universal Textiles Australia Ltd at Derwent Park in Tasmania? At that meeting was there a frank and forceful exchange of views and should this meeting lead -

Opposition members- Oh!

Mr HODGMAN:

-The Labor Party does not care about unemployment in Tasmania. It does not give a damn. At that meeting, was there a frank and forceful exchange of views and should this meeting lead to a more humane understanding of the welfare and, indeed, the future of the workers at Derwent Park?

Mr MACPHEE:
LP

– The answer is yes, there was such a meeting. If I may say so, it was something of a challenge at times, but I believe there was a frank discussion. I regret that it had not occurred some time ago. The representatives of both the company and the trade union movement together with the two members of Parliament from Tasmania gained information which, had it been available earlier would, I believe, have been very helpful in resolving a very difficult human problem more easily than has been the case in recent weeks. I believe that as a result of that discussion last night- and the rational way in which they approached a highly emotional subject was a tribute to each of the parties concernedthere will now be a discussion by the company with its employees and most humane treatment will be accorded in a very difficult situation. The only point I think I should add is that the decision was a commercial one by the Dunlop company in respect of three product lines, one of which will continue to be operated in Hobart. It is hoped it can expand its volume of production in that product Une. In respect of the other two it will enable employment to be gained elsewhere as a result of their transfer.

page 1696

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATIONS IN WESTERN NEW SOUTH WALES

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

– I will look at the matter raised by the honourable member and consult my colleague and the record. I will make the information about the proposals available to the honourable member as soon as possible.

page 1696

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: TOURISM

Mr JULL:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory. Bearing in mind the growing interest in the Australian Capital Territory as a tourist destination, what plans does the Government have, if any, to promote Canberra as a regular tourist venue both within Australia and overseas? Is the population of the Australian Capital Territory to be made aware of the economic benefits of mass tourism in Canberra?

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

– One has to admire the honourable member’s courage in asking me a question today. The fact is that the Government is very concerned about making use of the great treasures, which have been stored in this national capital, to attract tourists from other parts of Australia and from other parts of the world. I do not want to go into this matter at great length, but each year approximately 2,250,000 people come to this capital city as visitors. Of those 1,750,000 people, I understand, represent genuine tourists. The present situation is that there is an Australian Capital Territory Tourist Advisory Board. I have announced my intention to reconstitute that Board and to put on it people who are involved in the tourist industry from other parts of Australia, with a view to their being able to add their expertise, their enthusiasm and their national spirit, to attract tourists to the national capital.

The fact is that there has been a slow-down in the growth rate of Canberra. The rate is forecast at about 3 per cent per annum in terms of population growth. That means a downturn from about 10 per cent in recent years, particularly during the time of the Labor Government. As a result of that downturn and also as a result of the fact that most of the building that has to be done in the national capital has either been done or is planned, inevitably one has to look to other areas for development. The tourist industry is certainly a very important aspect of Canberra’s future economy.

page 1696

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Mr HAYDEN:

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the Australian motor vehicle manufacturing industry is suffering a marked reduction in capacity utilisation, that its work force is down by several thousand, that its stocks of unsold vehicles are building up and that registrations of new private motor cars are down? Will he today make a statement to the Parliament outlining the steps the Government has in mind as a matter of the greatest urgency to relieve the extremely difficult conditions which are confronting that industry?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– Yesterday the honourable gentleman was preaching free trade. I suppose that means that, if he had the power, he would destroy immediately the policy we have introduced to preserve 80 per cent of the domestic market for Australian manufacturers. The honourable gentleman needs to understand where he stands in these matters and to make up his mind about them. He well knows, and people in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and other parts of the Commonwealth where the motor industry is so important well understand, the nature of the protection that we have afforded this industry- a protection which is greater than was afforded in the past and which has been made necessary by the policies over which he and his Party presided through three disastrous years. One of the policies they had was to allow wages to run riot, and in a two-year period to October 1975 hourly wage rates in manufacturing industry increased by 53 per cent. In addition to that, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, he co-operated with and was largely instrumental in the production of a report which resulted in a 25 per cent across the board tariff cut at the very time when other policies of the then Government, through grossly extravagant expenditure and through utterly irresponsible wages policies, were leading to inflation that ran up to 19 per cent per annum during those years of the Labor Government.

Quite clearly when major imbalances are created in an economy, as was the case during the period of the Labor Government, and when wages outrun productivity as they did, it takes some time for these matters to be put right. I believe that manufacturers, trade unionists and wage earners throughout Australia know that the policies that this Government is pursuing are right. They know that the errors and the sins committed in the name of the Australian Labor Party when it was in power cannot be put right overnight. They know that it will take long, patient and persistent effort to make sure that inflation is reduced and stays down, that profitability is restored and that Australia again becomes more attractive than many other countries throughout the world for investment purposes. If the honourable gentleman were in any sense concerned about the long term employment and well being of the people whom once the Labor Party represented he certainly would support the Government and the basis of these policies.

page 1697

QUESTION

TORRES STRAIT ISLANDS

Mr BRYANT:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did the Minister make an announcement recently that three northern islands in the Torres Strait- Kawa Island, Mata Kawa Island and Kussa Island- are no longer part of Australia? Is he aware of the existence of official maps of which I have copies here, one published in 1974 by the Division of National Mapping, another one published by the Division of National Mapping in 1949 and one issued by the Surveyor’s Office in Brisbane in 1892, which show clearly that the Australian border lies between those islands and the mainland of Papua New Guinea? Under what authority did the Minister make the announcement which makes an alteration to Australia’s boundaries, despite what appear to be the provisions of the Constitution? Will he make an adequate explanation to the House and give us a chance to bring the matter under parliamentary scrutiny?

Mr PEACOCK:
LP

– My answer to the latter part of the question is that I certainly will make an explanation to the House. It is my intention at the moment to place some matters before the Parliament in connection with this question next week. But it is incorrect in the view of the Government to make the assumption, which the honourable member made in the earlier part of his question, when he asked: ‘Are they no longer part of Australia?’ At law and by traditional practice in the area they have never been part of Australia. In fact, the original documents defining the Territory of Papua and the colony of Queensland indicate quite clearly that these tiny islands lying approximately 800 metres off the coast of southern Papua were in fact, and then deemed to be at law, part of the Territory of Papua.

Mr Bryant:

– How were they described?

Mr PEACOCK:

-They were so described in the instruments of transfer to the colonial authorities in the latter part of the last century. I will lay these papers before the Parliament, as I have indicated already. Regrettably, some confused cartographer or others deemed to describe them unilaterally as part of Australia. That does not bear examination and does not stand up to what is shown in the original documents. Those mapping authorities, such as the Oxford Atlas and the like, who go to original documents to draw their maps rather than plagiarising the maps of others, have placed these islands in the Territory of Papua. After our examination of the original documents, I can state that the reality today is that in approaching the Torres Strait negotiations with Papua New Guinea, as part of our negotiations from the Arafura Sea to the Coral Sea, I set to proceed from a proper basis at law. The law clearly stated that these islands belonged to Papua New Guinea from the original decree in the latter part of the last century.

There are some people who clearly disagree with this view. I do not believe that such people have gone to the original documents and have traced them through in establishing their viewpoint. More to the point, perhaps, in a practical sense and in a sense of concern for the people of the area, I state that a submission was received from the Queensland Premier who said only yesterday that he was not concerned with the Federal Government’s interpretation of this situation. Contained in that submission was the statement of the Torres Strait Islanders themselves, on whose behalf some people claim to speak, that they do not regard these islands as part of Queensland. They have never regarded them as within their area or as part of the traditional areas for themselves. They have always regarded them in the traditional movement, execution of fisheries and other activities within the Torres Strait, as part of the Papuan coast and as part of Papua.

So it means that at law, in the attitude of the Queensland Government, in the attitude of the Torres Strait Islanders and in the attitude and decisions of the Federal Government and of the Government of Papua New Guinea, the islands belong to Papua New Guinea. It seems to me that there ought to be no doubt, therefore, as to their proper legal standing. Some persons, as is their right, seem to question this. I wish they would return to original documents. If they did so, their questioning might be more accurate.

page 1698

MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I seek to add a point to one of the answers given earlier. The Australian Bureau of Statistics document released today, 3 May 1978, indicates that the value of retail sales seasonally adjusted for the three months ended March 1978 was 1.6 per cent higher than in the three months ended December 1 977.

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

-I seek to clarify a matter of the same nature, the same statistical release . . .

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the Leader of the Opposition asking for indulgence?

Mr HAYDEN:

-Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I grant the indulgence.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The same statistical release today shows that retail sales for March fell 0.5 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis.

page 1698

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

– I wish to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea led by the Honourable Song Wong- Young. On behalf of the House I extend to the visitors a warm welcome.

Honourable members- Hear, hear.

page 1698

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-The notice will have to be in writing.

Mr HAYDEN:

– The Prime Minister always skedaddles when he is in trouble. I move this motion because it is absolutely necessary that the Prime Minister make a statement on this crucial issue. When it is necessary to seek to bring the Government to account in the chamber of the people on every major issue confronting the country, the Prime Minister lacks the courage to debate those issues.

Motion (by Mr Fife) put:

That the Leader of the Opposition be not further heard.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 74

NOES: 32

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-Yes, Mr Speaker. The actions taken this morning by Chrysler demand an explanation by the Government.

Motion (by Mr Fife) agreed to:

That the honourable member for Port Adelaide be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question now is that the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders proposed by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr Bryant:

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will be called at an appropriate time.

Mr Bryant:

– I was just drawing your attention to the fact that I am in the chamber.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that he will not be called to make a personal explanation unless he gives me prior notice of it. He has not done so.

page 1699

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of Mr J. D. Norgard on the review of the Commonwealth Employment Service.

page 1699

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for the Northern Territory · Fisher · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable members I present the resolutions of the 103rd meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Adelaide, January 1978.

page 1699

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

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

– For the information of honourable members I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on sporting and recreational equipment: Tennis and squash racquets (developing country preferences).

page 1699

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

-The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Bourchier) is reported at page 1650 of the Hansardof2 May 1 978 as saying during the adjournment debate:

I raise a point of order. I ask the honourable member for Burke to tell us about the Craigieburn land deals in which he was involved and which were totally corrupt.

With the exception of the land on which my own house stands, I have never at any time bought land, sold land, owned land, or been involved even remotely in the purchase, sale or ownership of land either at Craigieburn or at any other place, and neither has any other member of my family been so involved. The issue of Craigieburn land deals’ which was referred to last evening is a matter about which I have no knowledge. Like other honourable members, I am jealous to protect the reputation I have in the community for honesty and integrity. Hence my distress at being directly referred to as being involved in thoroughly corrupt land deals at Craigieburn. Our Standing Orders- indeed, gentlemanly behaviour- dictate that such a charge be the subject of a substantive motion in relation to which evidence may be called and the accused have the right of a defence so that others may judge. I repeat that there can be no evidence that I have bought or sold land or been involved in any land dealings at Craigieburn or anywhere else. I am very much reminded of these words of Othello:

Who steals my purse steals trash; . . .

But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the light of that explanation, does the honourable member for Bendigo intend to apologise?

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order involved. Does the honourable member for Bendigo wish to make a statement?

Mr Bourchier:

– I merely wish to conform to the rights of the House and to withdraw any reflection at all on the honourable member for Burke.

Mr Scholes:

– The honourable member for Bendigo used the words: ‘Conform to the rights of the House’. Is he actually withdrawing or is he not?

Mr Bourchier:

– If my wording was not correct, I apologise to the honourable member for Burke and withdraw. I was referring only to the Government to which he belonged.

Mr Scholes:

– That is not true.

Mr Bourchier:

– It is correct.

Mr Scholes:

– You have done it a thousand times.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The cross-fire across the chamber has gone far enough. The honourable member for Bendigo has made an apology and a withdrawal. I believe that the honourable member for Burke would regard that as being a complete withdrawal and an apology. I might say that in circumstances such as these when an accusation is made, if such accusation is drawn to the attention of the honourable member who made it and that honourable member withdraws in that way, it is to the dignity of the House.

page 1700

FAMILY HEALTH INSURANCE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely.

The Government ‘s exploitation of family health insurance having the effect of imposing taxation by stealth.

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

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

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-Mr Speaker -

Question ( by Mr Fife) put:

That the business of the day be called on.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 74

NOES: 32

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr YOUNG:
Port Adelaide

-The Opposition is of the clear understanding that at the commencement of this session of Parliament arrangements were made that it would have five speakers a week on matters on public importance. Those arrangements have stood until today. The arrangements have not been broken by either side. The Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) and I have been able to ensure that various matters have been brought before the House. Today those arrangements have been broken by the Government without any prior notice at all to the Opposition. The contention of the Acting Leader of the House (Mr Fife), who told me, after he had moved the motion that Government Business be brought on, that the Opposition could make up the leeway on matters of public importance throughout the rest of the week, is incorrect. If he believes that, he has been misled by whoever sends him down the notes. As far as the Opposition is concerned no arrangements now stand and as for the Acting Leader of the House, his word is dirt.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Port Adelaide will withdraw that remark.

Mr YOUNG:

– I withdraw. His word cannot be taken.

Mr Bourchier:

– I request the same short indulgence to respond to the same subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will be given indulgence.

Mr BOURCHIER:
Bendigo

-As the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Young) has quite rightly said, arrangements are made for a program but it is the Opposition which breaks the arrangements regularly by indulging in fantasies and wishing to suspend Standing Orders to bring on some debate at a particular time. By doing that the Opposition takes up the debating time of the House. The Government is merely trying to resurrect the balance of debate and to allow honourable members opposite to indulge in debates which are very important to this country.

page 1701

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr Fife) put:

That Order of the Day No. 1, Government Business, be postponed until the next sitting.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden)

AYES: 73

NOES: 34

Majority……. 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1702

ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 April, on motion by Mr Newman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr FIFE:
Acting Leader of the House · Farrer · LP

– I seek the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation. Before the debate on the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1978 is resumed, I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the ministerial statement relating to uranium development. Of course, separate questions will be put on each of the measures at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore, Mr Speaker, that you permit the subject matter of the two Orders of the Day to be discussed in this debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate on the matters? There being no contrary voice, I shall allow that course to be followed.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The introduction of the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1978 demonstrates in the clearest possible way that the Government has failed to take seriously the criticisms of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry of the use of the Atomic Energy Act as a vehicle for the commercial development of uranium. The Government has failed to separate the contradictory roles assigned to the Australian Atomic Energy Commission with respect to nuclear safeguards. It has failed to remove the repressive intimidatory security measures of the Atomic Energy Act which will now be applicable also to commercial uranium mining. These failures reflect the Government’s contempt for the informed opinion of the members of the Inquiry, which was headed by Mr Justice Fox, as well as the conscientiously held views of the public with respect to the hazards of uranium mining and export.

The Government is going ahead undeterred by the need to find solutions to the serious problems associated with the use of uranium. By contrast, the Opposition has taken full cognisance of the recommendations of the Fox Commission and, to a large extent, our policies are based upon the Commission’s findings and recommendations. While the unresolved questions relating to waste disposal and weapons proliferation remain, my party will maintain the view that Australia’s uranium deposits should not be developed. Development should be permitted only when the substantial problems have been adequately taken care of.

Nothing has happened in Australia or overseas of late that can provide any comfort to those concerned with the problems of nuclear powerquite the contrary. Reports from the United States General Accounting Office last September, from a task force which reviewed nuclear waste management for the United States Department of Energy in February and from the United States Congress Sub-Committee on Environment, Energy and National Resources, have all reiterated in the strongest possible terms the absence of technical and regulatory procedures for satisfactorily dealing with high level radioactive waste. No solutions exist now and it will be quite a long time before they do exist.

I assume this explains why the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony), in his statement on the development of uranium on 10 April, conveniently ignored the waste disposal issue. As far as nuclear diversion is concerned, no progress has been reported towards overcoming this problem. In fact, in February of this year the Chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote: the International Atomic Energy Agency Special Safeguards Implementation Report indicated that a country’s agreement to subject its nuclear activities to IAEA safeguards does not necessarily assure that adequate material control and accounting measures are applied in all cases. It is therefore possible, that the NRC could approve the export of nuclear materials to countries in which the IAEA is having implementation problems without the NRC knowing it.

As far as this Parliament knows, Australia would be in a similar position. Thirdly, there have been plenty of initiatives, plenty of proposals, but no guarantees that we are rid of the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation. The International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation- the Carter Initiativehas several years to run before any reports are due. Meanwhile, the decisions and recommendations in favour of uranium reprocessing in European countries, the refusal of France and West Germany to reconsider the sale of reprocessing technologies, the refusal of India to ratify the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty all undermine the INFCE talks. The nuclear industry has done little of late to put its house in order. The Bill provides no recognition of the gravity of the nuclear problem, other than to provide ibr the premature development of Australia ‘s uranium deposits.

We oppose the Bill. We oppose it not only because it would provide a right to mine, but also because the Atomic Energy Act is a totally inappropriate Act to control commercial or civil uranium mining. We oppose it because the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is an inappropriate body to be responsible for civil uranium development. The second report of the Ranger Inquiry recommended:

That the Atomic Energy Act 1 953 not be used for the grant of an authority to Ranger to mine uranium.

However, on 25 August last year, both the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the then Minister for National Resources indicated that the Government had rejected this recommendation. The words of the Minister were: . . having reviewed this matter, the Government neverthess considered that the Atomic Energy Act provides an appropriate basis for mining operations at Ranger.

The Bill now before the House seeks to amend the Act and, among other things, seeks specifically to cover the proposed Ranger operation. The only justification offered for this variation of the Fox Inquiry’s recommendation has been that the Fraser Government ‘would not wish to disturb arrangements entered into in good faith by the companies with the previous Government’. This is a hypocritical and facile argument. When it suits this Government, it sweeps aside or destroys other efforts of the Labor Government. Even more to the point, the Memorandum of Understanding between the Whitlam Government and the Ranger partners which described these arrangements was not signed until 28 October 1975. This was three months after detailed terms of reference were announced for the Fox inquiry.

The crucial section of the Memorandum provides that contracts giving it effect ‘shall not become effective until Australia has affirmed them following consideration of: (a) the report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry; (b) a report by the Interim Aboriginal Land Commissioner in any claims by Aboriginals in respect of land within the Ranger Project area’. The companies concerned- Peko Mines Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltdknew full well that the use of the Memorandum of Understanding depended on the Labor Government’s consideration of the Ranger inquiry’s report. That report is now public, and it demonstrates that the Atomic Energy Act is an unacceptable basis for uranium mining. The Act was originally drafted at the beginning of the Cold War. It was designed to enable the Australian Government, via the Atomic Energy Commission, to control the exploitation of uranium in the Territories and throughout the Commonwealth for defence purposes. Uranium mined and exported under the authority of this Act during the 1950s and 1960s was destined for nuclear weapons use. The Act also enables the AAEC to conduct nuclear research, both for civilian and military purposes.

Over half the Act is devoted to detailing security provisions and regulatory provisions relevant only to military operations. Under section 60 of the Act, all projects of the AAEC are to be regarded as defence projects for the purposes of the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act of 1 947. Under this latter Act it is an offence to boycott or threaten to advocate the boycott of an approved defence project. In proposed new section 38 of Part HI of the Atomic Energy Act regulations can be used to control the mining, treatment, use and disposal of uranium under licences issued by the Minister. This is a power additional to the general power of the Minister to direct the Atomic Energy Commission to undertake and supervise operations involving uranium. This is dealt with in sections 17 and 18 of the Act. The Act provides that the Minister may authorise uranium mining largely unconstrained by, in the words of the Fox Inquiry ‘ the ordinary law of the land respecting mining’. This is contained in section 41 of the Act. Section 43 is amended and places heavy penalties on the obstruction of persons exercising power under the Act. In Part IV of the principal Act normal civil rights are proscribed in respect of access to information, search and arrest, proof of intent and access to declared areas.

But the situation in 1978 is quite different from that in 1953. Nuclear weapons are condemned by both sides of this House. Australian uranium must not be used to manufacture them. The harsh, repressive measures of the Atomic Energy Act- measures which the Bill before the House does not seek to eliminate- are completely unjustified to cover commercial uranium mining. Why does the present Government want to continue to use the Atomic Energy Act? The first reason apparently, is that the security provisions of the Act offer the Government a means of intimidating and suppressing public opposition to uranium mining. This would be a disreputable misuse of the Act. The second reason, for which the Bill gives substantial evidence, is that the Government is seeking, through comprehensive control of uranium throughout the country- in the States and Territories- the eventual direct control of other mineral developments. If this is the Government’s intention, and the Bill is quite explicit in extending the Commonwealth’s power, it is a hypocritical move by the Government.

The only reason the Atomic Energy Act was proposed by the Labor Government to apply to the possible Ranger project was that the preferred alternative, the more appropriate alternative, the Petroleum and Minerals Authority, was invalidated by the High Court. It was invalidated after the most extreme and intense opposition by the then Liberal-National Country Party Opposition. In other words, we have now in government, the same people who, when in opposition, conducted a sustained and ultimately successful campaign to prevent the control by the Commonwealth of mineral development in the States. Yet in this Bill, they propose to do just the same thing, but to do it in a less satisfactory way. Not only was the Labor Government’s attempt to establish the Petroleum and Minerals Authority sabotaged by what is now the Government, but in 1974 when, as a substitute for the PMA, the then Minister for Minerals and Energy sought to use regulations made under section 38 ( 1 ) of the Atomic Energy Act to licence uranium mining, these regulations were disallowed by the Senate Opposition majority. Again, the same people who now occupy the Government benches in the Senate and who will be expected to support this Bill, in 1974 condemned and vetoed the use of provisions of the Atomic Energy Act.

Clause 10 of the Bill would amend section 38 of the Atomic Energy Act to extend and strengthen the Minister’s power to regulate and control the rnining, processing, possession, transportation, use and disposal of uranium and related and associated minerals or other substances. Yet on 19 September 1974 Senator Durack led the then Opposition charge against the regulation of uranium milling by the Minister. The question we now ask is: Will the 16 senators who voted on that occasion to disallow the regulations issued under the Act and who still sit in that Chamber, now vote against the proposed new section 38 as contained in this Bill? Will they recognise that otherwise they will be providing future opportunities for the regulation of uranium mining in a way they previously rejected?

As a result of this decision of the Senate in September 1 974, the Minister for Minerals and Energy had no alternative but to intervene more indirectly to ensure the adequate control of future uranium development. The fact is that the Senate left the Minister no alternative to the use of the Atomic Energy Commission acting under the direction of the Minister as provided under section 19 to control the Ranger project. I repeat that this was not the choice of the Labor Government, but it was left with no alternative. The effect was that because the Atomic Energy Commission became the agent of the Government in the Ranger venture, the full security provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, including powers under the approved Defence Projects Protection Act, came to apply to any exploitation of Ranger uranium. The objections of the Fox Inquiry to the use of the Atomic Energy Act arose from three considerations. Firstly, as briefly described above, the security provisions of the Act are inappropriate to a project with purely peaceful interests. Secondly, there might be conflict between Aboriginal land rights and provisions of this Act. Thirdly, there could be a real or apparent conflict of interest between the entrepreneurial role of the Atomic Energy Commission and its responsibilities under the Act to supervise local environmental protection measures. So far as this third matter is concerned, the Fox Inquiry suggested that its concern would be reduced if an independent Uranium Advisory Council were established.

At the moment, however, there are only shaky grounds to suggest that an independent Council will be able to offset the Atomic Energy Act’s potential for preventing adequate public scrutiny of the environmental standards at Ranger. Indeed the appointment of an Atomic Energy Commission scientist to set up the office of supervising scientist responsible for environmental research and monitoring hardly inspires confidence in the Government’s sensitivity to the need for unimpeachable information and judgments on environmental controls. What is more, the Government has failed to give the Uranium Advisory Council any permanent basis and has not indicated its level of financial support There must be serious doubts as to whether the Council can keep an adequate overview of the promotional activities and operations of the AAEC.

In his second reading speech the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) has introduced a further fundamental conflict of interest in the role of the AAEC. The amendments proposed in this Bill to section 34 of the Act specifically include reference to Australia’s nuclear safeguards obligations. The body this Government proposes to be responsible for these obligations, the Australian Safeguards Office, will report through the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. Only a Government completely insensitive to international and Australian public concern about nuclear proliferation could propose in 1 978 the establishment of such a blatant conflict of interests. The same body, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission would be regulating and commercially promoting uranium mining. Clearly, there should be a separate statutory authority to administer nuclear safeguards, as has been the case in the United States now for 3 years. Public confidence in the Government’s professed interest in ensuring that adequate safeguards are attached to the use of Australian uranium mining and its by-products will not be achieved while the Government is satisfied to use the AAEC as its effective regulatory body.

The most objectionable aspect of the use of the Atomic Energy Act as a basis for the Government’s uranium mining proposals is the frightening powers the Act gives the Government by virtue of its security provisions. The Prime Minister has stated publicly his Government’s intention to collect dossiers on opponents of uranium mining. Information collected in this way could well be used to convict a person ‘on the circumstances of the case, his conduct, or his known character as proved’ as provided under section 47 of the Act, rather than by proving that a person actually committed an offence such as the publication of restricted information. Similarly, speaking or publishing leaflets urging workers not to mine or transport Ranger uranium and not to construct a mine site could be construed as an offence under section 4 of the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act. Publication even of ACTU, labour council and union resolutions urging a boycott of the Ranger operation could be illegal, and be subject to penalties of up to $10,000 and 12 months imprisonment if prosecuted on indictment. Should unions opposed to the establishment of a mine at Ranger not be deterred by the possible use of these powers, the Atomic Energy Act itself allows that a person authorised by the Minister may enter a mine site, as stated in section 41, ‘with such workmen and other persons as he thinks fit. ‘ Finally, provisions of the Atomic Energy Act could be invoked against workers taking part in normal industrial disputes over wages, working conditions and so on. The Minister could declare a mine site a ‘restricted area’ under section 55 of the Act, and then forbid entry to selected persons or order certain persons to leave the area, under section 56. A strike could be broken under section 41. Workers could be detained, searched and arrested without warrant on suspicion of having ‘interferred with’ any equipment used in connection with the Ranger operations.

Both the Atomic Energy Act and the associated Approved Defence Projects Protection Act could be used in a heavy-handed attempt by the Government to repress the opposition to uranium mining and to stifle public discussion of the hazards, dangers and unresolved problems of the nuclear industry. The very existence of these Acts in relation to the proposed Ranger development is an unjustified, unnecessary and objectionable threat to the normal civil right to express opposition to government decisions. Let me repeat this fact. The Atomic Energy Act as it now stands and as it would be amended by the Bill before the House is entirely irrelevant to the mining of uranium in Australia at this time. The only reason it is even available to the Government is that the Whitlam Government was unable to properly ensure the orderly control of mineral development by the Petroleum and Minerals Authority. Further, the only reason the Austraiian Atomic Energy Commission is involved in the proposed Ranger venture is that the Senate under Liberal-Country Party control in 1974 rejected the more satisfactory direct regulation of uranium development by the Minister.

In 1974, the Atomic Energy Act and Atomic Energy Commission were at best a third choice. The Ranger inquiry made it obvious that they are a quite unacceptable choice. We are prepared to learn from its findings and recommendations. Obviously, the Government is not. Just last week on 24 April, speaking on Australian Broadcasting Commission radio, Professor Charles Kerr described the Ranger inquiry’s attitude to the Atomic Energy Act as follows:

We thought it a most inappropriate bit of legislation, not only due to its penal clauses and its infringement on human rights but because it would also be used to maintain conflict by this blanket of secrecy which has dogged the whole process ever since it started.

The Government chooses simply to ignore the independent, well-informed judgments of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.

The Government is under no obligation to pursue the use of the Atomic Energy Act, even if it does choose to continue with the 1975 Memorandum of Understanding. As I have already said, the Memorandum contains a clear let out provision for just such an eventuality as a recommendation by the Ranger Inquiry against the use of this Act. In the letter and spirit of the Memorandum the Government could have reconsidered the Memorandum on receipt of the Inquiry’s reports, just as a Labor Government would, quite properly, have done. But no, the Government chooses to go its own ill-advised way. It chooses to use the Atomic Energy Act to cover uranium mining in the civil sense. It chooses to amend this Act only by making it more comprehensive, by strengthening and enlarging the powers under which the Commonwealth may and, under this Government, will intervene in uranium mining. The Government has failed, in the Atomic Energy Act Amendment Bill, to propose any amendments to the Act which could even at the most generous estimate eliminate the worst excesses of the security provisions of the Act. It has failed to take the opportunity available to review the Act thoroughly, to evaluate the terms under which the Atomic Energy Commission undertakes its research and commercial activities. These are serious matters that the present Government has chosen not to give attention to in proposing amendments to the Atomic Energy Act.

So, what changes does the Bill now before the House propose for this Act? Firstly, it substantially widens the functions of the Atomic Energy Commission. The Commission would retain its authority to engage in uranium and nuclear energy research, development and exploitation for defence purposes. But it will also be explicitly enabled to engage in the mining and marketing of uranium for purely commercial purposes, related to energy generation. The Commission will not be constrained to act only, as is the case now, on behalf of the Commonwealth in deals made with other Governments. Of course, when the Labor Government made the AAEC a part of a similar commercial operation- as a partner in the Mary Kathleen mine, and as a partner in the Ranger venture- it was castigated for doing so by the very people who now propose this as a legitimate function of the Commission. I do not think we on this side of the House will ever become accustomed to the hypocritical attitude of the people who presently occupy the Government benches. Secondly, the Bill will allow the AAEC to mine, treat and most significantly sell not only uranium, but also ‘ minerals found in association with uranium’. This is an important extension of the interests of the AAEC. But we are offered no explanation or justification by the Government for it.

These proposed amendments pale into insignificance when we look at the changes the Government proposes for Part III of the Act. This part concerns the control of materials related to nuclear energy, that is, ‘prescribed substances’. It describes the limited circumstances in which the Minister can exercise control of these materials, and it describes the purposes for which ministerial regulations can be made in relation to these circumstances. At present, the Minister has control of uranium only for the purposes of the defence of the Commonwealth and in relation to activities carried out in Territories. The amendment would dramatically extend the purposes for which the Minister could control uranium to include the exercise of the Commonwealth’s powers over overseas trade and commerce, and its powers over external affairs. The Minister, in his second reading speech has explained the second of these by pointing out the need to ensure that exports of Australian uranium are covered by adequate nuclear safeguards. But no explanation is forthcoming in relation to the inclusion of the Commonwealth’s trade and commerce powers.

When this proposed amendment is taken in conjunction with the changes proposed for section 38 of the Act, dealing with the regulatory powers of the Minister, it is clear that the Government is seeking extensive, direct power over the mining, processing, transportation and use of uranium in the States. It seeks to exercise control over the licensing of uranium mining in the States regardless of the State’s policy on mining, provided the uranium is either to be traded between states or to be exported, the Minister assures the House in his second reading speech that it is not the Government’s intention to include within the scope of the regulations the working of minerals which contain only small traces of prescribed substances. As we know intentions change. What matters is the contents of the legislation. The Opposition is quite frankly amazed that a government which so often declares itself decentralist and which so often talks about the new federalism, of returning powers to the States, can propose a Bill with provisions such as these. It is the height of folly for the Government to put forward such proposals after the way its members treated the efforts of the Whitlam Government when it tried to exercise direct control over uranium development. We regard these amendments as a shabby, backdoor method of acquiring Commonwealth control over uranium, and, potentially, over other mineral developments. We regard the Atomic Energy Commission as an inappropriate body to be responsible for uranium development.

The Bill serves to worsen rather than to relieve the contradictions concerning the involvement of the Commission by making it the agency effectively responsible for nuclear safeguards. We regard the Atomic Energy Act as an inappropriate Act to control the civilian use of uranium. The changes proposed in this Bill do not overcome the objections raised by the Ranger inquiry. The Act is fundamentally concerned with the control of defence-related operations. It cannot be amended in a way which will make it acceptable. It is an Act which is out of date and out of touch with our time, particularly in view of the relevance that the Government sees for it. It is for these reasons that the Opposition feels that it can in no way seek to amend the Bill; it must oppose the Bill in a blanket way.

Mr CADMAN:
Mitchell

-I must admit my personal disappointment at the attitude taken by the spokesman for the Opposition, because his Party was in fact very much involved with some of the provisions enshrined in the legislation being debated today. If we look back at the history of the development and the fulfilment of Australian contracts to provide uranium to energy scarce countries, we notice that the Whitlam Government tabled in the Parliament on 31 October 1974 a statement announcing a program of large-scale uranium development in the Northern Territory, commencing with the exploitation of the Ranger deposit, to be followed by the development of the Nabarlek and other deposits. Together with the Whitlam Government’s statement on 31 October 1974, there was tabled in the Parliament an agreement with Peko Wallsend Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australia Ltd for the joint development of the Ranger deposits by the Commonwealth and those companies. The agreement was signed by the then Prime Minister, Mr E. G. Whitlam, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, the then Minister for Minerals and Energy, the late Mr Connor, the Chairman of Peko, Mr Proud, and the Managing Director of EZ, Mr Mackay. That agreement was elaborated further in a Memorandum of Understanding dated 28 October 1 975, about one year later, which was also tabled in the Parliament. It was signed by the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, Mr Proud and Mr Mackay.

It seems to me that if this Government moves to carry through proposals that were commenced by the previous Government, the Opposition in a fit of pique will seek to deny that it was ever involved in the development of the original guidelines which it was instrumental in setting down. The next thing we will have is the spokesman for the Opposition seeking to deny that under the agreement the Atomic Energy Commission is vitally involved. Under that Memorandum of Understanding the Labor Government involved the Atomic Energy Commission to the extent of 7214 per cent, Peko 13% per cent and EZ 13% per cent of the total investment. The Opposition says that there were some things that it did not like about the way in which the Opposition of the day forced it to involve the Commission. That may be so. However, the Labor Government proceeded to produce a memorandum. It proceeded to enter into a number of arrangements and understandings that would lead any sensible and sane person to believe that the Government of the day, despite its presently stated shortcomings, was happy with the way in which matters were proceeding and that it was happy to see the development and export of uranium under those conditions. Now it would seem that we are being criticised. In fact the Opposition will vote against these provisions.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has said that he is not altogether happy with the way in which we are going ahead with this matter; we do not really agree with that Memorandum of Understanding, with the way it was set up or with the involvement of the Atomic Energy Commission. We are taking up the agreement that the Opposition created, and we will make it work. We will make it work in a way which is not completely the will of the Government, but we are making the best we can out of what the Opposition has allowed us to do. There is no pique; there is no real criticism of what we are doing. We are confident of our ability to progress successfully. We are confident of our capacity to move forward with these proposals. I do not think that it becomes the Opposition to whinge and whine about what it might have done and would have liked to have done, when in fact it set these proposals in train. It had already moved down this road, and now it is critical of this Government for pursuing the matters in the way that it set them up.

The Government first of all has taken up the Fox report and has implemented its recommendations in a series of Bills that will come into the Parliament in the next few days. Those Bills will cover environmental control, certain amendments for the protection of Aboriginals and parks and wildlife. There is a whole series of Bills seeking to protect the environment and the Australian community. This Bill which amends the Atomic Energy Act is a vital part of that package. Another recommendation that the Government has followed through relates to the consideration of Aboriginals. If one looks at the Memorandum of Understanding one sees that an important proposition proposed by the previous Government was based on a report by the Interim Aboriginal Land Commissioner on land claims by Aboriginals in the Ranger project area. This Government has involved Aboriginals in a most successful and imaginative way. One must see the package as a whole, as an exciting and outstanding differently way of handling a difficult subject. In the first place it recognises the importance of fulfilling contracts and supplying energy; secondly, it protects the Australian community; thirdly, it protects the Aboriginal community and its sacred lands and other lands which need protection; and fourthly, it covers the need to protect and safeguard the environment in the area where the mining will take place.

The Government has followed up religiously and conscientiously a whole series of areas which were partly instigated by the previous Government and partly instigated by this Government to allow a successful, imaginative but carefully considered approach to the mining of uranium in Australia. From what the Opposition has saiddespite taking up these topics carefully, sincerely, with proper negotiations and proper consultation with everyone involved- we are being criticised. We are implementing what were basically many of the Opposition’s ideas. Some of the provisions are its proposals. Because the day has changed and the Government has changed, the Opposition is no longer prepared to support what were basically its concepts and its ideas. I find this extremely disappointing, and I would have thought that the calibre of the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) was such that he would approach this matter in a constructive way. I thought he was a bigger man with a better understanding of what is needed and that some sort of consensus could have been gained and some sort of discussions could have taken place between the Government and the Opposition. Unfortunately since November 1976 the Opposition has been moving slowly towards opposing the mining and handling of uranium in Australia, for no real reason. Members of the Opposition say that they want to debate the matter. However, they do not debate it in this place. They state the stance that they have taken as a party and then preclude any further discussion.

In the development of this legislation one must take note of the way in which the Government has sought to make provision for safeguards and protection for the Australian community. I do not think that anybody would agree with the proposition that a commodity such as uranium, despite the fact that in its unrefined form it is not a particularly dangerous substance, should be handled carelessly or thrown around as many other commodities are when they are transported through our rail and shipping complexes. There should be proper protection for the Australian community and for international communities so that unforeseen circumstances do not occur. It should be ensured that there is no intervention by people who would seek for their own purposes or even for military purposes to subvert the Australian community. I do not think that that can be done and I do not think it will be done under the legislation that we are debating today.

The Government has taken a responsible attitude to follow through the safeguards and the obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, that Treaty states that the Government must accept responsibility for the handling of these materials within our country. As the circumstances now exist within Australia we are fulfilling completely the obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I feel that if we were to vary in any substantial way the proposals contained in the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill, we would be moving away from those safeguards. We must be careful. It is all very well to say that people must have freedoms to demonstrate. We agree with that. People must have freedoms to protest or to strike. But there are international obligations placed on this Government in the handling of a material, which obligations we seek to impose upon the countries with which we are trading.

The Opposition seems to be putting forward the proposition that while Australia need not agree with or observe the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, we should impose its requirements upon other countries. I find this a spurious argument. I think that it is a debating point brought forward by the Opposition. Surely honourable members opposite cannot seriously argue that we should not fulfil the obligations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the way in which uranium is handled. Surely they do not at the same time propose that we apply by bilateral agreements to other countries the conditions of the Treaty. I think that the attitude of the previous speaker in the debate is a tragedy. I am sure that he has not properly thought through the implications of the way in which he wishes these materials to be handled. Of course there is a need for safe handling. Of course the conditions of control for the use of uranium and the delivery of uranium to fill contracts and international agreements are vital. This Government will see that it is done properly and in a fair way for the community. It will see also that this is done in such a way that all our treaties are fulfilled.

Of course, there is no need to enunciate to the House the importance of the careful use of uranium. Energy deficient countries are looking to Australia which possesses about 20 per cent of the world’s low cost proven uranium reserves to become a regular supplier of uranium to assist them through a period of transition. Australia has the potential to become a net energy exporter in very big terms. It is said that it could become an energy exporter equivalent in thermal terms to Iran in providing for the world ‘s energy needs today. Bearing in mind the world energy situation, Australia has a role as an energy rich nation. It is responsible for us to talk of Australia’s development and careful handling of uranium and not to talk as the Opposition does about Australia withholding its uranium supplies from the world community. I consider that this Government really does not think it an option to withhold supplies of uranium from an energy hungry world.

If we were to look at the need for power, we could do no better than turn to the speech delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and look at some of the needs for safeguards and the provision of protection within Australia. It is interesting to note the way in which Australia, under the safeguards provisions, will seek and ensure the implementation of the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency for the control of uranium and the by-products. I wish to bring to the attention of the House the closing remarks made by Sigvard Eklund, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, at the International Conference on Nuclear Power and its Dual Cycle. I found great interest in the conclusion he drew when outlining one of the shortcomings of his Agency which he felt existed. He said:

I feel that we also share the responsibility for having failed to convey to the peoples of the world the message that nuclear energy represents no larger, and indeed often smaller, risks than many other technologies that have been accepted by modern society.

The Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, an international body contributed to by those people who seek to stretch their capacity for the use of energy, is saying that he feels that he has not been successful in explaining to the world some of the implications and the importance of alternative energy forms.

The Comecon countries- the bloc of communist countries in Europe- intend to pursue nuclear power as an energy source. A major conversion to atomic power has long been the principle of Comecon energy policy which will not be hampered by ecology minded minority pressure groups. Those countries have a capacity to override the democratic processes. It is unfortunate that the Australian Labor Party is not participating in a democratic process. The suggestions coming forward from honourable members opposite seem to be minimal. There seems to be a constant repetition of the words: ‘We do not agree with what you are doing; therefore we will not co-operate in trying to develop for the Australian people a proper way of dealing with this problem and a proper way of imposing safeguards’. There is a failure on the part of honourable members opposite to see that the Australian will that is implied in the series of Bills coming before the House is recognised by the rest of the world and recognised in such a way that many other countries will take up our safeguards and our environmental protection measures. This could well be the important factor of the Australian uranium industry. With the Government that we have today, these measures will have an impact on the way in which uranium will be used on this earth. They will need to have an impact shortly because uranium will be required as a source of energy for only a short time span.

Unless the members of the Australian community and this Government are prepared to accept this challenge we will be held responsible by many nations for not getting into the kitchen. If things are hot and difficult and the Australian community can play a role, the Australian Government must take up that challenge and see that we have the will, the forbearance, the understanding and the wish for peace that are expressed so often in the Austraiian community and expressed internationally. I am sure that that can be done. It is very clear that only by developing our vast uranium resources can Australia play a real role in strengthening nuclear safeguards and preventing any ill-considered rush to plutonium based energy systems. The setting up of the Uranium Advisory Council, the provisions that will come forward for environmental protection, the amendments to the Atomic Energy Act, the amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act, the amendments to the Northern

Territory Supreme Court legislation, the Aboriginal land rights legislation and many other moves are all important factors that fit together. It is not good enough for members of the Opposition to say that they will disagree with that or disagree with something else, that they will refuse to offer any alternatives and will be nasty and stand back because they fear the kitchen is too hot.

I put a challenge to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) who is sitting at the table. I hope that the honourable member and his party can come forward and offer some constructive views on the way in which these serious matters can be handled. It is the easiest thing in the world for an Opposition to be critical and to oppose. That is part of the role of an Opposition. But the full role of an Opposition is realised only if its members are prepared to trade punches with the Government on the ways in which compromise can be reached and the ways in which modifications can be made in matters of this type.

I hope that when he speaks the Leader of the Opposition will recognise the role that the Labor Party can play in this matter- the role that so many trade unionists want the Labor Party to play in this matter, for they see jobs, they see potential and they see opportunity being denied to this nation unless the Labor Party participates in a thoughtful way. I look forward to the words of the Leader of the Opposition and trust that he makes a constructive contribution to the development of this dangerous and interesting substance, one that holds so much potential for energy-scarce nations of the world. The proposals before the House brought forward by the Government deserve the support of the House in seeking to provide safeguards for Australia’s development of uranium and protection and security in the handling of that material.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– The Opposition opposes this Bill just as it opposes the Government’s policy for development of the uranium industry. We reject as specious the Government’s justifications for its policy, and we condemn as ill-considered and dangerous its decision to control and regulate uranium mining with an amended Atomic Energy Act. Labor in government established the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry to clarify the facts and issues surrounding the mining and use of uranium. We were profoundly disturbed at what that inquiry found- the complete lack of any method of permanently disposing of long-lived radioactive wastes, ineffective technical and institutional means of preventing the civilian atom becoming the military atom, and the frightening prospects of nuclear terrorism. The Government now seeks to legislate some of the recommendations of the Ranger inquiry which follow the Government’s decision to condone mining.

The Opposition has been left in no doubt by the inquiry’s findings that this is not the time, these are not the circumstances, to extend the uranium industry in this country. We can see past the lifetime of the uranium deposits into the lifetime of the wastes and the plutonium their use will generate. We oppose new uranium mining because of the unsolved problems, hazards and dangers emphasised by the Ranger inquiry. Since the report was published, since we adopted our policy, nothing has happened to make us regret or reconsider our policy. Over the past year fundamental problems have continued to beset the nuclear industry. No hopes and promises for the future can obscure that reality. For instance, the Government repeatedly claims that it will demand strict safeguards in uranium export contracts to prevent the misuse of Australian uranium. Why has the Government not demanded similar provisions for the safe, permanent disposal of nuclear wastes? The answer is simply that, despite its misleading statements to the contrary, the Government knows that no such disposal method exists. No customer country could guarantee to dispose safely of the radioactive by-products of Australia’s uranium.

The facts as distinct from the rhetoric about the disposal of these wastes are profoundly disturbing. In a policy announcement last October, the United States Department of Energy said:

Questions surrounding the permanent disposition of nuclear wastes have not yet been resolved.

Last September, the United States General Accounting Office reported that it had found: gaps in Federal laws and regulations governing the storage and disposal of nuclear waste; geological uncertainties and natural resources trade-offs encountered when selecting ‘ permanent ‘ disposal locations; overly optimistic schedules for demonstrating the safety of . . . proposed waste disposal locations and waste management practices; and the lack of demonstrated technologies for the safe disposal of existing commercial and defence high level waste.

In February this year, the report of a United States Department of Energy task force which reviewed nuclear waste management made it clear that current United Sates plans for waste disposal needed revision, and that the necessary technical data did not exist to enable the safe ultimate disposal of reactor wastes.

Just three weeks ago, the Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Sub-Committee of the United States Congress published its findings on the costs of nuclear power. The Committee’s disturbing conclusion was: . . neither the Federal Government nor the nuclear industry has prepared reliable cost estimates for the ultimate disposal and perpetual care of radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel.

Only four days after these facts were made known, the Government of California rejected a proposal to build a large nuclear reactor because its wastes could not be safely dealt with. In Britain, despite a recommendation to build a fuel reprocessing plant, waste disposal still remains under a cloud of doubt. In February, less than three months ago, British researchers reported:

Ten years of research will be needed before we have enough information on any specific site to propose a pilotscale trial of a disposal system.

The point is that no disposal technology exists. This fact is indisputable. We, on this side of the House, will have no part of a policy to export uranium while those problems remain unsolved.

The Government has tried to justify its uranium policy by referring to the world’s energy needs. With childlike innocence it still offers nuclear power- fuelled by Australian uranium- as a universal panacea. But that offer is being accepted much less readily, much less frequently, than was the case five years ago. Let me give the House some examples. Because of cancellations and postponements, by October 1975 the number of reactors on order or planned in the United States had fallen by 150 compared with only two years earlier. By May 1977, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission was predicting for 1985 a nuclear capacity only 60 per cent of that predicted in March 1976. From December 1976 to December 1977, West Germany slashed its predictions by a third. Unofficial projections made last May by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of nuclear capacity by 1985 were just over half those given to the Ranger inquiry in 1976. The optimistic nuclear estimates of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, produced in its latest annual report, are one-sixth down on the estimates it made for the Ranger inquiry, only a year earlier. This is the reality of the nuclear power industry. This is the dark side of the argument that this Government likes to ignore in its misrepresentation of the facts to the Australian people. These are the statistics the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) conveniently overlooks every time he pushes the barrow of his party’s campaign financiers in the powerful uranium lobby.

The OECD ‘s world energy outlook gives four reasons for the international community’s diminishing enthusiasm for nuclear power. First, reductions in electricity consumption forecasts; secondly, high capital costs and difficulties in raising finance; thirdly, technical problems; and, fourthly, public anxiety over safety and environmental issues. From the point of view of cost, the best that can be said is that sometimes in some places, nuclear electricity is marginally cheaper than coal and oil fired electricity, provided- and this is an important proviso- the costs of nuclear waste disposal, nuclear reactor decommissioning and perpetual care, all of which are unknowns, are ignored.

Put quite simply, nuclear power has failed to live up to the promises made on its behalf. There is therefore no short-term urgency to develop Australian uranium, a conclusion reached in both Ranger inquiry reports and supported by the Ford Foundation-Mitre Corporation Study in January 1977, and the most recent OECD study.

The 10 April statement by the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) ignores these facts, just at the Minister ignores all aspects of the issue that question the correctness of the Government’s policy. The Minister has also sought to revive the myth that only by exporting uranium can Australia exert some influence in strengthening safeguards. In a market moving in the buyers’ favour, indeed being pushed in the buyers’ direction by this Government’s enthusiastic rush to export, the seller will find its influence severely restricted. Canada has already learned this lesson. Canada has been forced to back down from its demand for prior approval of reprocessing its uranium to a position where it has had to accept prior consultation and notification in uranium safeguards agreements with the Euraton countries. This puts the lie to the naive assurances of this Government that our voice will be heard if we sell uranium.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I turn to a central objection to the exploitation of Australian uranium. The first Fox report confronted me, as it did all Australians, with the very real possibility that Australian uranium could well end up as nuclear weapons in the hands of other governments or terrorists. No event, no decision, no agreement and no policy since that report was published have eliminated that awesome prospect. How then can this Government, in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) during last year’s election campaign, ‘guarantee that Australian uranium will not end up in nuclear weapons’. No such guarantee is possible and this Government knows it is not possible.

Since the reports of the Ranger inquiry, it has been confirmed that reactor grade plutonium is a suitable explosive fuel. Evidence given to the British Windscale inquiry last September by a consultant to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission revealed that the United States has successfully exploded a device using this material. But in February this year the Chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in a letter to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said the Commission could not adequately assess the effectiveness of safeguards and security measures in countries to which the US sent nuclear materials. Like the US, Australia would be handicapped in ensuring the security of Australian uranium.

How has the Government’s safeguards policy withstood the test of the past year, since its announcement? We were promised that Australia would join in a common attitude with Canada and the US to implement the Carter nonproliferation proposals of last year. But, as I have said, Canada already has relinquished control over decisions by customer countries to reprocess or highly enrich its uranium exports. Will Australia also cave in under pressure? We just do not know.

Australia’s model safeguards agreement, gratuitously sent to potential uranium customers, is denied the scrutiny of the Australian people and their Parliament. How will we know if it is adequate and likely to be effective before it is too late? How will we know what changes are made at the request of prospective importing nations? The answer is that we do not and will not. What progress has there been internationally in achieving acceptance of the Carter proposals to defer uranium reprocessing and the commercial use of the fast breeder? The answer is, very clearly, nil. Mr Deputy Speaker, efforts to establish an effective, workable non-proliferation system have been, at best, only partially satisfactory. Strong effective safeguards still elude us and other nations. The reasons for leaving Australian uranium in the ground for the time being remain as compelling as ever.

I turn now to some specific provisions in the Bill before the House. I begin by reminding the House that the Ranger inquiry recommended against the use of the Atomic Energy Act to regulate and control the Ranger operation. It made this recommendation because, basically, the Act is inappropriate for the sort of operation proposed. It is an Act designed for the political circumstances of 1953. It is utterly irrelevant to the needs and concerns of 1 978. Provisions of the Act severely threaten the civil liberties of a wide cross section of the Australian people- those people who actively oppose uranium mining and who urge others to do so. These provisions exist only because the Act was framed to cover uranium mining and nuclear research with military motivations. It was framed during the Cold War when it was more acceptable to promote the military use of nuclear power. The Government’s amending Bill does nothing to eliminate these aspects of the Act. They remain as a testimony to the hasty, ill-advised manner in which the Government has acted to allow uranium mining.

Furthermore, the Government plans not only to continue with the Austraiian Atomic Energy Commission as a partner in the Ranger venture, but also to strengthen the role of the Commission in the development and administration of nuclear safeguards. That is an extraordinary suggestion. It reveals that the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) has been able to assert the complete ascendancy of the uranium promoters in the desperate rush to export uranium. It will be he who receives the reports of the Safeguards Office, via the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Giving the Commission the dual roles of promoter and safeguards regulator of uranium mining is not only absurd but dangerous. The two functions were separated in the United States three years ago, with the division of the United States Atomic Energy Commission into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration. The promotion and regulation of nuclear power present a conflict of interest if undertaken by the same body. It is a totally objectionable proposal.

I have already pointed out, in general terms, that the Atomic Energy Act should not be used for a commercial project. It is available in this form to the Government only because government members, when in Opposition, made sure that the then Minister for Minerals and Energy could not directly regulate and license uranium mining in the Northern Territory. The LiberalNational Country Party Opposition in the Senate voted to disallow the Minister’s regulations. The result was that the AAEC became responsible for mining. That was not the choice of the Whitlam Government. It was forced upon us as an unsatisfactory alternative.

The Government could, if it wished, now overcome this problem. It could, if it wished, make a new agreement with the Ranger partners. The Memorandum of Understanding certainly allows for such a change. But this Government has retained the terms of the Memorandum, including specifically the quite unsuitable control provisions of the Atomic Energy Act; and it has widened the areas in which regulations involving security can be made. These security provisions are quite irrelevant to a commercial operation unless they involve those parts of the fuel cycle which deal with plutonium or enriched uranium, that is, those parts of the fuel cycle which might be targets for terrorists.

If the Government does intend to get into these fields, and thus make it more difficult for Australia to withdraw from the nuclear industry in the future, it should say so now. The Government continues to talk about exporting uranium only under safeguards. But safeguards do not apply to yellowcake. They begin to apply only at the stage of uranium hexaflouride, and its subsequent enrichment. The Government has been altogether too coy about whether it plans to establish a hexaflouride conversion plant and an enrichment plant in Australia, and thereby lead Australia even more deeply into the nuclear industry from which retreat would become impossible.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I can hardly believe that the amendments proposed in this Bill to sections 34 and 38 of the Atomic Energy Act come from the same people who in opposition, only four years ago, sought to destroy the Whitlam Government’s initiatives which would have enabled Commonwealth control over mineral developments. Yet the changes proposed to section 34 would substantially widen the purposes for which the Commonwealth could exercise powers over uranium. Taken in conjunction with the proposed new section 38, the Commonwealth would be able to regulate the working of minerals which would be exported for purely commercial purposes. This regulatory power would extend, quite explicitly, to the States. This is a dramatic and so far unexplained reversal in the Commonwealth’s attitude toward its role in State affairs. If this is what the Government intends, it should say so, and say so clearly and openly. If it is not, the Government should now deny any interest in expanding its powers.

Finally, although the package to which this Bill belongs will provide the legislative basis for the Government’s enthusiastic go-ahead for uranium mining, one will look in vain to find any firm commitment to the introduction of a resources tax, or to the conditions under which such a tax would apply. All we have, once again, is the vague assurances of the Minister for Trade and Resources about discussions with the industry. More time has been spent by the Government, and with no sign of a result, over its resources tax negotiations than Cabinet spent in its consideration of the second Fox report before a decision on uranium mining was announced. The Government is very sensitive to the delicate needs of the uranium entrepreneurs. It is much less sensitive to the need for a sound, safe nuclear policy.

Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:
Hotham

– The purpose of this group of Bills is to allow uranium mining to proceed. This development will take place in a controlled and responsible fashion, taking into account the environment and the Aboriginals. Let us be quite positive that we will be mining and selling uranium. This is the heart of the matter. The ministerial statement and the Bills make it obvious that we will be following the recommendations of Mr Justice Fox in his report on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.

There are two areas which Mr Justice Fox perhaps has not detailed sufficiently, although the points were made. Perhaps, because of the way in which such reports are written, there are areas on which he has not put enough emphasis. I refer, firstly, to the fact that this world has no alternative other than to mine uranium, if we are to maintain our standard of living and to increase that of underdeveloped countries. Secondly, I refer to the fact that the opposition to uranium is badly misinformed and is charged with emotion not facts. We have seen much of the facts in relation to fossil fuel and hydro resources. We know that there must be a change in our methods of power generation. We also know that uranium supplies have a finite though very long life and that Australia is well off because of its coal resources.

Let me put to rest the opposition arguments for solar and wind power. These are supplementary only and could possibly reach 5 per cent of our total energy requirements. The fact is that on a perfectly clear day the sun’s rays give 1,000 watts of energy on each square metre of surface which is at right angles to those rays. This is an absolute maximum. There is no way to increase it. This is the power used by just one radiator which is normally in use in the house. For one million people we would require about a 1,000- megawatt power station, and to supply that we would need 130 square kilometres of collectors.

Thus Melbourne, which has a population of 2.5 million people, would lose all its western and northern suburbs and its few Labor members as the area was covered with collectors. This shows just one reason why solar power is limited. The protagonists of the slogan ‘Solar not Nuclear’ are dealing in fiction not facts.

The next misconception put forward by the opponents of uranium is that we should use wind, water and tide. These concepts proved inadequate in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Whilst there have been immense strides in technology since that time, it is still a hopeless proposition. Let me give as an example the modern windmill with giant 100-foot sails in a 6-metre per second wind. That is no breeze. This could provide an annual output of 440,000- kilowatt hours per year. When it is realised that each person requires, for home and industry, an average of 150,000-kilowatt hours per year, one can see that a massive windmill would be required for three persons. It can be worked out that England would need 20 million giant windmills which would cover about one half of the total area of the country. The uranium knockers did not tell honourable members that, did they? What about the incredible noise, the incredible accidents, the sight pollution, and the very real doubt about whether there would be enough copper in the world to provide the motors and the conductors. Do not get me wrong; we should develop these means of power generation, but we must keep in mind their limitations in the total energy situation.

So what of the future? We will run out of oil and gas in the very near future and coal and uranium in a slightly longer time. There is now every reason to believe that we can produce power from the fast breeder reactors, but the production of that power increases the use of uranium by thirty to fifty times. So we still have only a finite limit of resources. There is, however, another source which hitherto was regarded as not a practical solution, but it has the promise of unlimited resources. I refer to fusion. I explain by saying that when the heavy elements break down in fission they give out energy, as in a nuclear power station. When light elementary nucleii, such as in hydrogen which is available from water, can be made to combine in fusion, again energy is released. This is what happens in a hydrogen bomb. To do this at the moment essentially requires an atomic bomb explosion in order to produce enough temperature and pressure. It is, however, the energy source of the future. In the meantime there is no alternative- I repeat, absolutely no alternative- to using uranium for power generation.

Let me take up the points that are used against uranium. Let me do the opposition’s job for a moment, then perhaps we will get facts and not fiction. The several areas that the Opposition is concerned with are environment, Aboriginal land rights, radiation hazards, nuclear explosions, terrorist activity and waste disposal. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to cover the matters of the environment and Aboriginal land rights, but I will deal with some of the other matters. Let us look at radiation hazards, again in terms of fact and not fiction. The opposition to uranium did not tell us that coal-fired power stations give off radioactivity which has a longer life than the emission from nuclear power stations. Nor did they tell us that there is more radioactivity in whisky, milk, salad oil and tap water than there is from nuclear power stations.

Let us put the matter of radiation into perspective. We use a unit called the millirad in relation to radiation. A medical X-ray produces 500 millirads. Cancer treatment provides, say, 4,000 millirads, and people recover. Compare this with sitting alongside a nuclear reactor for 10 years. A person would be exposed to up to 2 millirads. Radiation in the air is 5 millirads; from rocks and soil we get another 50 millirads; from cosmic rays, 30 millirads; and from body salts, 17 millirads or so. Just by living 150 feet above sea level gives one another two millirads, and flying at 35,000 feet from here to Perth and back gives one another two or three millirads. The annual natural radiation on a person in Australia is 100 millirads. People in parts of Brazil are exposed to 13,000 millirads, and they do not die any sooner than other people.

Compare this situation to 10 years with a reactor where radio activity is between one and two millirads. The Opposition did not tell us about this. Let us look at the toxicity of plutonium. There has been no recorded case of cancer attributable to plutonium in 17,000 workers over a period of 30 years. Further, to refute the terrible campaign which has shown up in booklets given to primary school students, I invite the attention of honourable members to the fact that there has been no increase in mutations, deformities or genetic effects in the 71,000 offspring born during two generations of the highly radiated people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This subject of radiation goes under the names of pollution and danger by radiation. Let us compare it to the dangers of pollution by present day power generation systems. Hydro power requires dams. Dams have broken with huge loss of life. Oil transportation has caused massive pollution of the seas. Mining of coal in the United States of America since 1907 has cost 88,000 lives underground. The pollution of the skies from the burning of coal and oil is cause for some concern. So we see that the dangers and pollution of uranium for power generation are minute in comparison to present systems.

The Opposition has endeavoured to make the word nuclear synonymous with bomb. Forget the cartoon posters of a shattered power station; they have no factual validity. A nuclear explosion in a nuclear power station is absolutely impossible- I repeat, absolutely impossible. I shall explain why. The substance U238 is mined. It is not fissionable though it does contain 0.7 per cent of U235, a substance that is fissionable. For a bomb or nuclear explosion one needs U235 enrichment to 90 per cent. In a power station U235 enrichment is to only 3.5 per cent. Therefore the big bang is impossible. The same reasoning shows it is also impossible to have an explosion with plutonium oxide pellets which will be used in plants of the future. It is horror fiction only. The Opposition argument goes this way: Reactors give plutonium which makes bombs and therefore there should be no reactors. Let us look at that argument. The original bombs were of fissionable U235 material only. This was made from enrichment by a tedious diffusion plant covering hundreds of acres. Now it can be produced cheaply by small centrifuges. No one would worry about separating U235 from the rods of a nuclear power plant and concentrating them. It is much cheaper and easier to centrifuge uranium ore.

India made a nuclear device but not from material obtained from its power station. Let us remember also that it took 20 years of concentrated work from the time the decision was made to produce a bomb as soon as possible. The Swedish defence department estimates that it takes between 30 and 40 high calibre experts many years and an expenditure of millions of dollars to produce a nuclear bomb. Forget the Australian Broadcasting Commission which displayed an expert who was prepared to produce a bomb in the kitchen. Let us have facts. Now let us get to the facts on waste disposal, which we heard about from the previous speaker. No one need worry about radiation for 100,000 or even a million years, and no new technology is required. It is being done now.

Mr Holding:
Mr ROGER JOHNSTON:

-In France. Simply, there is some time available at the reactor site for partial decay of radioactivity. Then the material is chemically separated so that many products may be re-used. It ends up in a sandy mass which is held for another 10 years to allow further decay. This is necessary also to reduce its heat for the next operation which is vitrification. The radioactive sand is solidified in twice its volume of insoluble glass and is finally encased in a thick steel cylinder. This operation was not carried out until recently as there was not enough radioactive waste to make it worthwhile. Further I remind honourable members of the 10 years delay that is required to reduce the heat. There is now radioactive material storage in the United States of America in disused salt mines, more than 2,000 feet down. Salt mines are used for good reason. They give an indication that no water is present, otherwise the salt would dissolve and wash away. The storage is also located in a non-earthquake area. It is safe. It would take a meteorite measuring a mile in diameter and scoring a direct hit to disturb this storage. Let us look now at the radioactivity involved at each of the stages. There is 85 per cent decay before the waste leaves the reactor site. Within 10 years and before vitrification 99 per cent of radioactivity has disappeared. Of the one per cent remaining, 99.9 per cent decays within 300 years. In fact, a person could eat a quarter pound of the material without harm, though it might require a bit of mustard.

I now pass from the details and get to the sources of opposition to uranium. For some years there have been isolated calls for the elimination of nuclear power stations, just as there is still the odd call to replace motor cars with rickshaws or horse-drawn vehicles. But a few years ago there was a rather more united opposition in the United States of America and its base seems to have been the Friends Of The Earth. No one complains about opposition to technical subjects as long as that opposition is based on facts and argued on facts. But when conceited opposition is based only on misleading information such as we heard today, and designed to appeal to sentiments and emotions, one is forced to look a little further for the real reason behind the opposition. The first approach is to find the source of the financial backing.

It has been established that sources in Sweden are the immediate backing for that American group, and it is laundered money from Finland. It does not take much brainpower to work out where the real opposition to uranium power stations comes from. It is a political doctrine which has as its main theme the destruction of the Western World’s democratic systems and the subsequent implementation of its own doctrinaire systems. I do not say that everyone who is opposed to uranium has these motives. Some few of them have some objections based purely on worthwhile emotions. I hope that those people will look at the facts and accept that decisions on this highly scientific and engineering subject must be made on consideration of arguments based on facts. However, a large number of objectors, such as those who obtain stickers from the Australian Labor Party which state ‘Solar not uranium’, ‘Leave uranium in the ground’ and Don’t mine uranium’, are to be found in university car lots and at other places of learning. This gives cause for concern. One expects people who frequent places of learning to look at facts. Such stickers are proof that that attitude has not been adopted. I sum up with a conclusion based upon the facts. We will need uranium for power generation in the very near future. There is no alternative. It is safer and less polluting in all respects than all other known form of mainline power generation. Uranium must and will be mined.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I join with my colleagues in opposing at all stages this obnoxious Atomic Energy Amendment Bill. I want to comment on remarks made by the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Roger Johnston). He stated that we claim that the nuclear industry is synonomous with the bomb. I quote part of the third finding of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, which appears at page 185 of its first report:

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

I wish to goodness that honourable members opposite would stop pushing out their pious propaganda and understand the connection of nuclear weapons with the nuclear industry. I do not want to spend any more time in answering the honourable member for Hotham- my time is more precious than that. I wish that this Government would cut out the flowery and pious language it uses in its statements on uranium. Everyone knows that members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Country Party are hawks on the uranium issue. Everyone knows what the Government’s real intentions and real concerns are. They are to commit Australia’s uranium to the world nuclear fuel cycle; to mine and sell off the uranium as quickly as possible; and to control the growing Australian opposition to uranium mining. The Government will do this by pious expressions of concern, by lies, by innuendoes and by suppression and misrepresentation of information. If that fails it will stand ready with the full repressive force of the police state tactics enshrined in the Atomic Energy Act, which the Bill now before the House seeks to amend, to suppress openly opposition to the uranium go-ahead.

This Government does not give a damn about the dangers associated with nuclear power. It does not give a damn about the growing and frightening risk of nuclear war that is part and parcel of the spread of nuclear energy generation facilities, which is spelt out in the third finding on page 185 of the first Fox report. I ask honourable members to read and understand those sections of the Fox report which deal with this matter. Of course, this Government has been under pressure from nuclear reactor manufacturers, particularly the Westinghouse Corporation and the General Electric organisation. The Government does not give a damn that one of the customers it is courting at present- the Philippines- has come by its nuclear reactor by very dubious means and has located that reactor in the Philippines at very close proximity to four active volcanoes. The Government does not care that the Marcos regime, with which it is making bilateral arrangements, has already demonstrated total disregard not only for the protests of people of the Philippines who live near the reactor site but also for the democratic and constitutional rights of the entire population of that nation.

This Government does not care a damn about Aboriginal people in the north, particularly in the Arnhem Land area. It rather likes the idea that the sovereignty of the Australian people is threatened by tying Australia into the world nuclear fuel cycle, which is controlled at its key points by ruthless commercial and political interests which do not hesitate to move into countries and to crush popular opposition to their commercial ambitions. This Government does not care a damn that the proposed future pattern of economic development in Australia, with emphasis on mining for export, of which uranium would be a significant part, will mean fewer jobs and lower standards of living for the working people of this country.

Well, the Australian Labor Party does care. It is concerned. Indeed, it is very much concerned about the issue. The rank and file members of the Labor Party all over Australia have expressed their concern about the unresolved problems of uranium mining and nuclear power. Their concerns have formed the basis of the Australian Labor Party’s uranium policy, which opposes any new uranium mining development until all the unresolved problems have been resolved. Labor people will not be satisfied with some shifty footwork by the Government on Aboriginal land rights or so-called safeguards against proliferation.

Labor’s people know that the proposed ‘bilateral arrangements’ to control the use of Australia’s uranium are not worth the paper on which they are written. How can the Government make a penal provision contained in its bilateral agreement work? That is what we want to know. No Minister has come into this House to give those details. It is not possible to make it work. It has never been possible throughout the history of man and it never will be possible. Both President Marcos and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) know that a bilateral agreement could not be made to stick. They know that there is no way that we can be sure that Australian uranium, once it leaves the ground, will not find its way to a nuclear weapon during the 250,000 years fife of the plutonium it contains.

Labor has identified a long list of problems and has said that no new mines are to be developed until the members of the Labor Party are satisfied that all the problems have been solved. Labor has recognised that for the time being we are stuck with an aggressive pro-uranium Government. That will not always be the case. Labor has sought to make its policies effective, even though we are now in opposition, by saying quite clearly that we will repudiate- I stress this point- any commitment of a non-Labor government to develop new mines. The message is clear to the uranium companies, the power companies and the finance companies which are considering investing in new uranium mines. They do so at their own risk. It is clear to President Marcos, to his Atomic Energy Commission and to the Westinghouse Corporation that they should not count on Australian uranium to fuel their reactors or to fuel their other ambitions over the 30-year life of a nuclear power facility.

Labor has made its position clear. The investments will not be of use until the inevitable defeat of these conservative forces which now occupy government. Anyone who thinks that the ALP policy is negotiable- that Labor will shift its ground- is making a very serious mistake and has no real understanding of the depth of feeling of Labor’s rank and file in opposing uranium mining, or of the strength with which Labor people will defend and implement Labor’s present policy. The strategy of the pro-uranium lobby to play down the uranium issue and to remove it from public discussion will not be successful against the conscious and alert members of the Labor Party and other progressive organisations in Australia. These people have made up their minds and they will change their position only after it has been proved that all the problems in regard to uranium mining have been solved.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) has tried just about every trick in the book to sell the idea of uranium mining to the Australian people. We heard him claim that nuclear power is essential to meet the world energy needs and that no alternative sources of energy exist. Yet within a week, Herman Kahn, who would normally be a political ally of the Government, said:

Several years ago I said that the world was crazy to go nuclear when coal was available . . . there is enough coal to meet all the world ‘s energy needs.

That is a fact of life. There is no crisis in solid fuels, in energy driving fuels; the shortage exists in liquid fuels. The Deputy Prime Minister is using the sales pitch that somehow Australia’s international standing will increase because it participates in the untidy rush to sell uranium and compound the risks. I want to deal with one of the sales pitches which the Deputy Prime Minister has been pushing hard in the Parliament and outside. That is the issue of existing contracts. His line goes like this: ‘No political party wants to add to Australia’s embarrassment by placing further in jeopardy the honouring of existing contracts.’ Labor’s position on existing contracts is clear. It relates to the views expressed in the first Fox report. I refer honourable members to page 64 of that report wherein it is stated that existing contracts do not pose a problem because if it is decided that Australia should not develop new uranium mines, then uranium to meet existing contracts can be obtained from other countries. This is Labor’s position. It was carried overwhelmingly at the Perth Conference of the Australian Labor Party. No new mines are to be developed to meet existing contracts. If enough uranium is not available from the Mary Kathleen mine and the Lucas Heights stockpile, uranium can be obtained elsewhere to fill the existing contracts. The Deputy Prime Minister should have given up on that tired old trick long ago.

The decision of the Fraser Government to use the Atomic Energy Act to cover uranium mining at Ranger, against the strong recommendations of the Fox inquiry, is a very ominous decision. If honourable members have not already read italthough anybody who reads Hansard or the newspapers should be aware of its contents- I refer them to pages 248 to 252 of the second Fox report The amendments to the Atomic Energy Act now before the House compound the concern. The Government continues to say that it is using the Atomic Energy Act only because the Labor Government used it in the Memorandum of Understanding signed in October 1974. But that Memorandum said also that no decision on the mining go-ahead would be made pending the outcome of the Ranger inquiry. Labor would certainly not have cast aside the outcome of this inquiry, as this Government has done. Clearly, if the Ranger inquiry says that it is inappropriate and even dangerous for a government to invoke the Atomic Energy Act to cover a commercial venture, that Act should not be used. That is one of the reasons why it should not be used and it is why the Opposition opposes this legislation. Moreover, in 1974 the Labor Government had not looked in depth at all aspects of the commitment of Australia’s uranium to the world nuclear fuel cycle. At that time Labor’s policy was for uranium mining. Since then we have had the benefit of much information from Australia and overseas, particularly that contained in the report of the Ranger Environmental Inquiry. Opposition to nuclear power has grown enormously in Australia. A growing proportion of the population is alert to the dangers of the mining and export of uranium and oppose it.

Labor’s reference to the Atomic Energy Act in the 1974 Memorandum is irrelevant in the present circumstances, just as are so many of the twisted arguments that this Government uses to cover its pro-uranium policy. As usual with this Government, it is necessary to look behind the words to see what its true motives are. Why did the Fraser Government decide to use the Atomic Energy Act? That is the question we must ask ourselves. The answer lies in the extremely repressive provisions of that Act, drawn up in the climate of the Cold War when the allies were still developing their nuclear weapons strategy. As honourable members well know uranium was being mined at Rum Jungle under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and at that time the Atomic Energy Commission was exporting uranium both to Britain and the United States to be used in the production of atomic weapons. Of course, in the 1950s one had to look under one’s bed every night to see whether there was a Red there. War was imminent in the minds of many. That was the time when this very repressive piece of legislation was introduced. Clearly the Government recognises that this repressive Atomic Energy Act will be extremely useful if it fails to neutralise public opposition in general and trade union opposition in particular. By conducting uranium mining under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act the Government has the power to deny ordinary industrial rights to workers and unions associated with the mining, handling and transportation of uranium. The Act can be used to allow the mining companies to determine the composition and affiliation of its work force. Indeed, the Army could be brought in to ensure that uranium mining operations were not interrupted.

The Act denies basic civil rights to any persons, including workers and union members, who hinder uranium mining in any way. It prohibits free speech and demonstrations against the projects. It gives the police the right to search and arrest without warrant and to convict people without proving that an offensive act has been committed. The use of the Atomic Energy Act to cover uranium mining makes an outlaw of any worker, union or Australian citizen who does not fully comply with the uranium mining and export policies of the Fraser Government. That is what this oppressive Act is all about. If the Government cannot get uranium the easy way it will get it the hard way and it will use the iron fist. One of the many repressive aspects of the Atomic Energy Act is that ‘all works carried out by or on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission’ including uranium mining at Ranger- are viewed ‘as if those works were approved defence projects within the meaning of the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act.’ This aspect is contained in section 60 of the principal Act. Therefore, in relation to uranium mining at Ranger a person can be fined $1,000 to $10,000 or gaoled from six months to 12 months for doing anything that hinders or obstructs the uranium mining project. This includes opposing the project in any way, including writing or speaking against it. It includes the situation where workers or unions desire to boycott any part of the project either directly or by a secondary boycott.

Under the provisions of the Act many of the decisions of the Trades and Labor Council and the Austraiian Council of Trade Unions would be illegal and subject to the previously mentioned penalties. The provisions of the Act would cover participants in demonstrations that are occurring already against the shipment of uranium, if that shipment were to be from Ranger. This aspect of the Atomic Energy Act is all- embracing. It can be used against any section of society, including workers and unions, whenever the Government feels it necessary to use the iron hand rather than the kid glove to clear the way for uranium mining and exporting. The Government now is proposing, as we are opposing, provisions that will consolidate the extent of the power of the Government under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act. It wants unlimited power to dictate the mining policies of the States, particularly Labor States such as South Australia, which have firm and sound antiuranium policies. It wants to make a mockery of the regulations of the uranium industry by putting the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in charge of the regulation of uranium mining while at the same time it is clearly very active in promoting things nuclear.

All told, the use of this piece of legislation to cover commercial uranium mining ventures in a climate of growing public hostility to uranium mining and export, poses a serious threat to civil liberties and to the industrial rights of a significant section of the Australian work force. The use of this legislation shows the Government up in its true colours. It is a repressive, devious, authoritarian government prepared to sacrifice the fabric of society in order to advance limited sectional commercial interests. I hope that some members on the other side of the House will have the decency to stand in support of civil liberties at least, even if they do not want to stand in support of the policies against uranium mining for which we stand. I hope that they will cross the floor and vote with honourable members on this side of the House against this obnoxious Bill which, in the history of this Parliament, is one of the most objectionable pieces of legislation ever proposed for use against civilians.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-Last year, we participated in three debates about uranium. Now we are participating in a fourth debate on uranium this time on the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill. So honourable members on both sides of the House have had a number of opportunities to weigh up this very important problem. The main purpose of the Bill that we are debating is to amend the Atomic Energy Act 1953. It is a package of legislation giving effect to the Government’s decision on the further development of Australia’s uranium resources. Amendments to the Act contained in the Bill, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding which used the Atomic Energy Act as its legislative basis, will enable the Australian Atomic Energy Commission on behalf of the Commonwealth to participate in a joint venture with Peko EZ. The Governor-General in his Speech when opening the Parliament this year mentioned that the Government would be proceeding with the development and export of Australia’s uranium resources in a carefully regulated and responsible fashion with full regard for the population, environmental control and the welfare of the Aboriginal people. Long and careful consideration has been given by the Government to the amendment to the existing legislation.

Whether we like it or not, we are in the atomic age. I am amazed at the violent opposition from the members of the Opposition in this House, particularly in view of the support given by the Labour Government in Great Britain to the extension of atomic energy for power purposes. Power generation from uranium represents 1 5 to 20 per cent of the total power generation in that country. We in Australia are very fortunate to have 25 per cent of the world’s known uranium resources. It is important because the resources in our petroleum fields are being reduced at the rate of 10 per cent a year. By 1982 or 1983 we will be faced with a very serious balance of payments problem. We will have to import petroleum products from the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bahrain, Qatar and other countries in that area. We know that petroleum from this area costs about $13.60 a barrel as compared to the cost of Austraiian produced oil of $6.30 a barrel. One of the features of this country is that if we mine, mill and market our uranium we will have the financial resources to meet our commitment in the petroleum fields overseas. It is interesting that this week a delegation from Iran came to this country. Some of us were fortunate enough to have a luncheon with members of that delegation and to hear that in 25 years time they anticipate that petroleum resources in Iran will be nearly exhausted. They have foresight; they have come out here to talk to our Government and to the people involved in developing our uranium resources about the possibility of our supplying uranium to them in the foreseeable future. They want to construct nuclear-fired power stations throughout their country in order to prevent this great problem. So there will be a world demand for uranium.

In Australia there has not been one loss of life among those involved in the mining of uranium. Despite what members of the Opposition and others who oppose the mining of uranium may say, there has not been one loss of life. Indeed, in the history of uranium use throughout the world, including the manufacture of nuclear weapons, there has been a known loss of only three lives and that was in the United States of America. As I mentioned earlier, whether we like it or not we are living in an atomic age. For the last 2 1 years America has had nuclear powered submarines which have been successful in both peacetime and wartime. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that the industry is a new one. It is one that has been proven; it is one that has been used for peaceful purposes, for power generation, and there is no doubt that it can be used for war purposes. Poison gas was used in World War I. Was poison gas used in World War II? No, it was not. The nations of the world know the dangers of nuclear war. I do not think that we should expect one to occur. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has proposed safeguards to be observed by those overseas who will purchase our uranium, which will leave this country in the form of yellowcake. It has been an experience for me, as a member of the Government Members Committee on Trade and Resources, to visit many of the uranium fields of this country and to see the development that is taking place. We visited the Mary Kathleen mine where we witnessed yellowcake being processed. We saw the uranium rock being mined, milled and processed into yellowcake.

The export of yellowcake is one of Australia’s great assets. Uranium poses no danger to this country in this form but I agree with those who claim that necessary safeguards should be taken by overseas countries when they are using uranium in reactors to produce power in their power stations. In Australia the development of uranium will provide employment. I know that it will not be a huge amount of employment, but the development of sparsely populated areas of country which is practically useless for pastoral or agricultural pursuits will provide jobs for many miners. The servicing of these uranium fields also will provide many jobs. They will require all sorts of equipment and servicing arrangements.

Mr West:

– How many jobs?

Mr O’KEEFE:

– It will produce quite a lot of jobs. It will produce more jobs than honourable members opposite anticipate. Some members from that side of the House want to stop the men working on our uranium projects. They are trying to stop altogether the export of uranium.

World energy needs will rapidly grow in the next few decades, although there may be some question about the rate and extent of this growth. What is certain, however, is that the present world consumption of about 6 billion tons of oil equivalent will increase to about twice to three times this level by the year 2000. This will happen even if the maximum efforts to conserve energy are applied by industrial countries, as they should be, and if the most efficient methods for conversion and final utilisation are developed throughout the world. It should be pointed out in this context that energy conservation measures also have a long lead time and are in some cases capital intensive.

The developing countries are the ones that will be interested in purchasing uranium. They represent more than half of today’s world population, and they are unanimous in holding that the glaring gap between the standards of living of their nations and of the industrial states must be reduced. This would require an expansion of energy consumption which, by the turn of the century, would raise their relative share far beyond the current level of 10 per cent of the total. It is against this background of growing needs that the role of nuclear power must be assessed. In the short term nuclear power offers no immediate substitute for oil, gas and electricity production and represents for many countries deficient not only in hydrocarbons but also in coal resources a substantial alleviation of their dependence on imports.

We are fortunate in this country that we have abundant quantities of coal for fuel generation. So we do not want to use uranium for fuel generation at all. We have plenty of fossil fuels, but we want to mine and export uranium. In the longer term uranium holds out to the world a technologically mature solution to the increasing energy needs and places a safety net under future development of mankind, for the ultimate potential of solar energy remains difficult to assess and nuclear fusion is still a very important matter. It is true that the present objectives of many nations in nuclear power development have become lower than they were a few years ago. This is due to the economic recession, efforts at conservation and delays in licensing and constructing power plants, sometimes due to public opposition. One member of the Opposition mentioned this evening that there has been a decrease in the number of power stations constructed. In the United States of America some states are using nuclear power for generation of electricity and for power plants to the order of 35 per cent. In the country as a whole the use of nuclear power for power-generating needs varies from 10 per cent to 35 per cent. For the world as a whole the indicated ranges of nuclear power capacity are of the order of 200,000 megawatts for 1980, 900,000 megawatts for 1990 and 1,300,000 megawatts for the year 2000. The share of nuclear power which is today less than 10 per cent of electricity and less than 3 per cent of primary energy will grow to some 35 per cent of electrical energy and 15 per cent of primary energy by the turn of the century, that is by the year 2000.

Some arguments have been advanced that since we are dealing with such relatively modest fractions of total energy needs, nuclear power might be indefinitely deferred and conventional fuels might take up the slack until all doubts and uncertainties are removed. We know that throughout the world there is a pending shortage of liquid fuels. Even the present rninimum nuclear objective would result in a saving of 1.5 billion to two billion tons of oil per year by the year 2000, which is more than half of present total world oil consumption. Parenthetically, we should recall that when the demand for oil becomes greater than the supply, one can foresee the price-rocketing which will follow. If nuclear power is to provide a general insurance against energy shortages beyond the end of the century, it must rest on a solid basis of experience. This can come only from the operation of a large number of proven reactor types. Avenues such as breeding through various fuel cycles, increasing the utilisation of uranium resources by close to two orders of magnitude must also be kept open. Development of reactors for high temperatures would permit nuclear power to go beyond electricity graduation.

We know from experience how long it takes for a new power technology to make a significant contribution to the energy market and to build its fuel and, more importantly its human infrastructure. To argue that these infrastructures could be dismantled and suddenly called back into being when the need for them became acutely felt is to fly in the face of all scientific and technical advances. Another point which should be stressed is the extreme variety of energy situations prevailing both in industrial and developing countries. They range all the way from situations in countries such as Italy, whose total indigenous fuel resources would hardly be sufficient to meet two years of consumption at present rates, to situations in the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with vast oil, gas and coal reserves. Hence the nuclear policies of these countries are bound to be different. Nevertheless, because of the diversity of immediate concern there seems to be unanimity on the long-term need for more energy. We will need all available energy sources. Therefore research and development of new energy sources should be encouraged.

I mentioned at the commencement of this speech that we in Australia are very fortunate in having 25 per cent of the world’s resources of uranium, that is, in yellowcake form. If we do not get busy and market this uranium we could be beaten to the markets which are offering. For example, recently South Africa sold some of its uranium to the United States of America. At present we have opportunities to sell our yellowcake to Canada, the United States, Japan, West Germany and many other countries. If we do not get off our backsides, get into this industry and market our yellowcake, we could lose out. For instance, as I mentioned in a speech last year concerning nuclear policy, the Japanese are conducting experiments to distil uranium yellowcake from sea water. The cost involved is very very high- about $900,000 per lb compared with our cost of $40 or $50 per lb. With technological research and with efforts of this nature there is no doubt that they could find a way to produce it economically. This would be detrimental to our opportunities to market uranium.

We support the Bill. We deplore the violent opposition which has been put up by the Labor Party in this House. Members of the Opposition talk about waste disposal. It has been a problem, but the latest techniques indicate that the waste from nuclear stations can possibly be used for fertilisers, chemicals and medicine. It is anticipated that in the years ahead technical knowhow will devise ways and means of eliminating waste altogether. Where atomic waste is stored throughout the world it is monitored by a worldwide body. That body knows where all the waste is located. As one speaker said in this debate, it is buried under the sea in steel cylinders and glass containers. It is monitored. I have no doubt that the problem of waste disposal will be eliminated altogether.

There has not been the loss of one life caused by nuclear experiments throughout the world. I have had the pleasure of taking part in several debates on this matter in different places. I have had people tell me that 30 or 40 Indians in some part of the United States of America developed cancer as the result of an atomic reactor being sited nearby. We hear all this harebrained opposition and such ideas being advanced. A smokescreen is being put up. We are in the atomic age; let us act like responsible people. The eyes of the world are upon us. Let us get busy with the mining and marketing of our uranium. Even after this Bill is passed by the Parliament- it allows for the development of the Ranger uranium deposit- it will be some years before any uranium is produced from the field. So let us act now and get on with the job of mining, milling and marketing our uranium.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition opposes the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill for the simple reason that it is an inappropriate measure in many aspects, particularly from the legal point of view. The debate up to the present time has contained many misstatements of fact and many misjudgements of what this legislation is all about. I refer immediately to what is stated on page 248 of the Fox report. It states clearly:

We strongly recommend against the use of the Atomic Energy Act for the grant of authority to mine uranium.

There it is. But the Government has decided to use this Act as the appropriate measure for the mining of uranium. It is about as appropriate as saying that all fighter aircraft personnel ought to be trained in the Kamikaze tradition. The legislation contains a self-destruct mechanism. It is inappropriate to put additional burdens on to the Act to make it so unworkable. The Government is mindful of the fact that in 1975 the then Labor Government considered it appropriate to participate in the development of uranium deposits. That is still the position. But it was subject to all the other qualifications and concerns we have expressed about the development of any uranium deposit. The Government has noted that Mr Justice Fox was critical of the proposal in 1975 to use the Atomic Energy Act as the appropriate base for any activity. This is because the Atomic Energy Act- the Act which this Bill seeks to amend- is based on the defence power. The Government’s response is to extend the constitutional base of the Atomic Energy Act to trade and commerce and to external affairs. This will only compound the problem.

Let us suppose that someone suggested that the Army undertake a mining operation and that a learned judge then said that it was inappropriate because the Army’s authority was related to defence only. Would it be logical to expand the constitutional authority of the Army to cover trade and commerce and foreign policy? It is not possible to make a horse out of a cow on that basis. The Atomic Energy Act is 25 years old. It was drafted in another era. There was, in this country, great enthusiasm and great hope for positive benefit from the development of nuclear physics and engineering. Sir Mark Oliphant said in those days:

The application of science and technology, including atomic energy, could bring to Australia prosperity and fruitfulness such as few nations have experienced.

What he says now is altogether different. The adoption of the Atomic Energy Act by Australia coincided with a significant shift in international approaches to the control of nuclear industry and the avoidance of nuclear proliferation. In the immediate aftermath of World War II it was proposed in the United States of America in what is known as the Baruch Plan that nuclear energy and nuclear weapons should be internationalised. This proposal was not adopted and instead the United States sought to achieve control by monopoly of nuclear secrets, by terminating all nuclear co-operation with other countries and by government monopoly of domestic atomic energy activities.

In 1953 the United States reversed this policy because it no longer had a monopoly of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union and Great Britain had tested nuclear weapons. Other countries, including Australia, had begun civil research programs. The International Atomic Energy Agency was established and a policy of international co-operation adopted so that by cooperation, rather than by monopoly, nuclear industry could be controlled. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission was established in this environment. It has become increasingly evident in the 1970s that the approaches adopted in the 1950s are no longer sufficient to control the nuclear industry. In addition the co-operation, transfer of equipment, material and technology that took place in the 1 950s have created some of the problems with which now we are asked to deal.

When the IAEA, and the ‘Atoms for Peace’ program were set up in the early 1950s, part and parcel of the transfer of nuclear equipment, material and technology was the adoption of a set of safeguards to see that equipment transferred was not diverted to military use. The two elements- encouragement and controloperated together. We find them together in the Atomic Energy Act. In Australia, as elsewhere, for several decades nuclear knowledge and the control of nuclear knowledge rested in the same set of nuclear expert hands. However, in the late 1950s and the 1960s, a second stream of political concern for nuclear arms control emerged. Until the mid-1970s, however, this was not to have a full impact on the established national and international machinery for nuclear industry development and transfer. The first achievement of the arms control stream was the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 which banned nuclear testing everywhere but underground. This was followed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1 968 which established two classes of State. These were the nuclear weapon States- those that had already conducted tests- and non-nuclear weapon States. The former undertook not to transfer control or possession or skill for weapons to non-nuclear weapon States and the latter undertook not to become nuclear weapon States.

There have been no major new multilateral treaties to control nuclear proliferation since then; that is for over a decade. In the wake of the NPT, nuclear supplier countries established some guidelines in what is known as the Zangger Committee, after Mr Zangger, the Committee’s Swiss Chairman. It set up the guidelines to enable members to meet the provisions of the NPT or equivalent obligations without commercial disadvantage. By the mid-1970s, and particularly with the 1974 Indian test explosion, the nuclear industry stream was confronted by the patent inadequacies of the 1950s IAEA Statute safeguards system. In the Nuclear Suppliers Group it sought to extend the habits of cooperation built in by the Zangger Committee to a more extensive system of control over transfer of sensitive nuclear technology. In effect, it was an add-on to the 1950s system of safeguards over transfers.

By this time, some serious rethinking had been taking place in relation to the domestic nuclear industry. The United States industry was the largest. The United States Atomic Energy Commission had the kind of variety of powers we find now so badly proposed by the Australian Government. It was responsible for nuclear research. It was responsible for making reactor fuel. It was responsible for making nuclear weapons. It was responsible for its own safety, security and for safeguards over exported material. The nuclear power industry was characterised by the same ‘shell be all right’ approach to safety, security and spent fuel problems that we have become accustomed to hearing from the Government.

Safety problems, cost over-runs and other failures attracted public attention and concern to the weaknesses of making the AEC its own watchdog. The result, after lengthy debate, was a decision to split the AEC into two bodies. A Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with an independent, quasi-judicial status was established. No longer does one branch of the Atomic Energy Agency approve the safety of projects of another branch. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission makes the rules and makes the decisions. The advocate of nuclear power no longer polices itself. If it now is proposed that Australia will become a country involved in nuclear industry on a larger scale, in Australia and through exports, it is appropriate that we must find a more up-to-date basis for action than the basis adopted in 1 953.

Australia ‘s position is not the same as that of the United States. No projection suggests any early need for Australia to have a nuclear power generation capacity, but our concerns and responsibilities will be at least as great as those of the USA if uranium should be exported. Moreover, while the United States continues to have a nuclear weapon program, Australia, by treaty commitment, will have no such program. It is totally undesirable for any amendment of the Atomic Energy Act to be brought in here with the defence power only remaining as its basis, just as it is inappropriate for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to remain its own watchdog. The reasons why we have been sent such a Bill would seem to be the Government’s haste, unmatched by any grasp of the issues, and the fact that the AAEC remains the repository of technical information and has a vested interest in its own survival. The Government claims the country has had time to study the uranium issue but its own half-baked effort suggests it has only half an understanding of the issues involved.

When the Australian Atomic Energy Commission was established it was given responsibility for all fields of nuclear energy and for cooperation with the States in the discovery and mining of uranium ores. Its establishment under the defence power of the Constitution reflected the close relationship of the defence and civil nuclear programs. Howard Beale, in a speech in 1953, said that the Atomic Energy Commission would concern itself with ‘uranium and atomic energy for industrial as well as defence purposes’. In fact, many of those involved in setting up the AAEC had been involved with allied nuclear defence activities and the Manhattan project. A great deal has changed since 1953, but unfortunately not the AAEC.

During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the AAEC plunged its resources into a research project abandoned by more sophisticated countriesa project to develop a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor using beryllium oxide. In the mid-1960s the project was abandoned. In 1966. the Commission’s main research program was changed to cover research and development programs in heavy water moderated, natural uranium-fuelled reactor systems. By 1969, as well as resisting Austraiian signature of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Commission was urging the establishment of such a reactor at Jervis Bay. It is now fully accepted that such reactors pose a major nuclear weapon proliferation risk. Such a reactor was used by India to produce material for its 1974 nuclear test. The

Commission sought for Australia an independent approach to nuclear industrial and defence capability. As the present Ambassador to the Netherlands said in 1969:

We should not be dependent on overseas countries for the life of a reactor, or for the fuel required by it.

Also we should be mindful of the fact that Prime Minister Gorton said:

Australia will make increasing use of atomic power in the years ahead and thetime for this nation to enter the atomic age has now arrived.

We should be mindful also of the fact that when Mr Fairbaim was talking at some stage in those days he said:

I find atomic energy one of the most interesting aspects of my portfolio, despite my complete ignorance of the technology.

As the right honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) said in an interview in 1975:

There was always a residue of thought in Government which said that if we could get to the stage of producing nuclear power . . . and wouldn’t be able to get assistance from the other countries to produce nuclear weapons, it was urged on us that we would be able to achieve the threshold between production of plutonium for a civil and military operational use.

My purpose in setting this out is to indicate clearly that the Atomic Energy Commission has a history of blind-alley research and dedication to nuclear energy options without regard for reality. The AAEC was established, and the Atomic Energy Act drafted at a time when it was thought that we were entering the age of the atom. It is now clear that the high expectations of those times will not be met. The whole nuclear industry is subject to questions of safety, security and economics. The atom ought not itself to be the focus of attention. Institutions of government in this field need to be designed for the future, not the past.

It would be more appropriate to extract certain functions from the Atomic Energy Act and to establish two new bodies. If the Government decided to proceed with uranium development, a uranium development authority should be established. It could have a structure, starring, and financial basis comparable to that of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, and its functions could be set out. The relationship between this body and the Bureau of Mineral Resources would need to be rationalised and specified. Secondly, we could have a nuclear safeguards, safety and security commission.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. Mr LIONEL BO WEN -Before the sitting was suspended, I was submitting that the Atomic Energy Act was the wrong Act to be used in the present circumstances, and again I remind the

House that the Fox inquiry said that it was inappropriate to use this piece of legislation. I made the point that we need new bodies, and I mentioned a uranium development authority and said that its functions ought to include those in Section 17(1 )(A) to (D) in the present Atomic Energy Act, with the deletion of any reference to encouragement. I also said that we need a nuclear safeguards, safety and security commission that would have independent status, would not be subject to ministerial direction, and would report to the Parliament. It is interesting to note that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States and the proposed Atomic Energy Safety Commission in Japan reflect some of the considerations to be taken into account- at present Japan is in the process of splitting the functions into two on the basis of being able to get the safeguards required- bearing in mind the large differences between the activities in those countries and in Australia requiring regulation.

The functions of such a commission, in my view, would be to set standards for inventory, and other aspects of safeguards to make rules for physical security, to set physical safety standards, to issue and withdraw licences for construction, et cetera, and to carry out inspections, investigations and inquiries to guarantee that those provisions are adhered to. Dealing with research and production, the remaining function of the current Atomic Energy Commission- that is, research and production of isotope material- could be put to further study in the context of an overall energy research policy and arrangements could be made for the supply of isotopes. I offer these thoughts to demonstrate the directions in which there could be a rational up-dating of the Atomic Energy Act. The proposal that we now have is half-baked and demonstrates the overall shallowness and dangers of the Government’s approach to nuclear issues.

Let us look at some aspects of the legislation as it affects States’ rights. Mr Dunstan in South Australia is perfectly entitled to complain. This legislation clearly shows what a hypocritical Government this is on the question of FederalState relations. The Government claims that it wants to give the States greater autonomy, but it is simply forcing financial burdens upon them while widening Commonwealth power elsewhere. If a Labor government were to do such things we would hear the old cries of centralism and socialism. We have not heard a word from the Premier of Queensland about this legislation, which guarantees that no State’s rights will be permitted to interfere. The legislation narrows the area of State responsibility, just as last year the amendments to the Trade Practices Act and the Industrial Relations Bureau legislation took very wide views of Commonwealth power.

The Opposition has always stressed national responsibility. Proposed new section 38 of this Act vests full control of mining and export in the Commonwealth. State laws will be overridden. Proposed section 38(2) provides that regulations may be made to prohibit the mining of uranium except under licence granted by the Federal Minister. There would be no question of State rights. We must make it very clear that the proposed new section 38(5) is a meaningless sop to the States because it would be overridden by section 109 of the Constitution. When the Commonwealth enters the field and covers it, no States’ rights are left in that field. That is the real problem. What we have here is a broadening of the old Atomic Energy Act, a piece of Menzies Cold War legislation being updated.

One of the real fears that people have about nuclear power is that not only are there safety and safeguards considerations to worry about but that in both uranium exporting countries and countries that use nuclear power there are very real threats to civil liberties. On that basis, let us consider some of the provisions of the old Act. Section 47 breaches very basic civil liberties in a quite disgraceful way. Sections 44, 45 and 46 deal with the acquisition, communication and removal of restricted information. Those provisions require an intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth, and one would think that that might be reasonable. However, the old section 47 (B) states that the onus of disproving an intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth is on the defendant. Section 47 (a) provides that a person can be convicted of an offence even though he has not been proved to have committed any act with an intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth. He can be convicted and sent to prison for 20 years if from his character it appears that he acted with intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth. In other words, a person can be convicted of a most serious offence simply on the basis of his character, without having been proved to have committed any act at all. No wonder the Prime Minister admires that sort of legislation.

Section 48 of the Act shows the hollowness of the Government’s commitment to freedom of information. A journalist who received restricted information- and the grounds on which information may be categorised as restricted are not spelt out- could be sentenced to seven years gaol. Section 50 of the Act permits the detention and arrest without warrant of persons suspected of having committed certain offences. Section 60 provides that no action lies against the Commonwealth, a State, the Commission, a constable or a peace officer in respect of an arrest, apprehension or detention. The whole Part is a gross infringement of civil liberties. Normal democratic rights such as freedom from arbitrary arrest, unwarranted search and seizure, and the presumption of innocence are thrown out the window. Section 58 provides that a person who does an act preparatory to the commission of an offence is guilty of that offence. There is no definition of a preparatory act, but the offence brings a penalty of 20 years imprisonment. Section 60 of the Act applies the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act 1947 to all works carried out by or on behalf of the Commonwealth.

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

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I rise tonight in support of the Government and the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill 1978, and refer to the beginning of the second reading speech in which the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) stated:

The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Atomic Energy Act 1953 as part of a package of legislation giving effect to the Government’s decision on the further development of Australia’s uranium resources. A fundamental element of the decision announced in this House on 25 August 1 977 was that development of the Ranger uranium deposit would proceed on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Whitlam Government and Peko Mines Ltd and Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd. Amendments to the Act contained in this Bill will enable the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to participate on behalf of the Commonwealth in a joint venture with Peko-EZ. This is in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding, which used the Atomic Energy Act as its legislative basis.

As is the custom in this place, one must spend considerable time in debate, if it is to be coherent and reasonably mature- and let us hope rational- dealing with some of the matters put forward by members of the Opposition. Honourable members have listened in the last few minutes to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), who kept reiterating that this Bill was from the Cold War period, as he described it, of 1953 and that in fact it was out of date and needed to be amended for a variety of reasons that he made clear to the House. I point out that it is, after all, only a few years ago that the Labor Government was in power. It is only a few years ago that the Labor Government made the decision to permit the current programs and contracts to be met as a result of mining in Australia.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the Act is not workable in 1978 because, as I have just pointed out, it originated in 1953. He said it is 25 years old. Yet, as I have pointed out, only four years ago when honourable members opposite were in office the then Labor Government saw no real reason to alter drastically this Act, for the reasons that have been put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Amongst other things he made reference to Sir Marcus Oliphant, who until recently was Governor of South Australia and one of Australia’s very distinguished scientists in the nuclear field. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out, in 1953 Sir Marcus stated that the great amount of uranium oxide to be mined in Australia presented Australia with an economic future of which the great majority of comparable nations would certainly be very envious. He then went on to say that Sir Marcus Oliphant has very different views in 1978. No attempt was made to put before the House any logical explanation as to why these views should have changed. It all seems to hinge around what one could describe reasonably and fairly as almost a psychotic reaction to fear in relation to the possible abuse and misuse of uranium oxide from Australia. I would have thought from what I have read of Sir Marcus Oliphant ‘s recent views that his concern applies less to uranium oxide than it does to homo sapiens or the human beings who are likely to be in a position to abuse and to misuse oxide produced in Australia. After all, it is a common enough error for people to look at potential weapons of violence and to look at the people involved and then, because of history, say to themselves that the weapons ought not to exist, whereas in reality what they should be saying to themselves is that the threat comes from the people to whom they have referred in their own minds.

Reference was made to the Nuclear Guidelines Committee and to the test in India of a nuclear device for peaceful purposes. I answer that argument by pointing out to the House that since the British Government handed over control of the Indian sub-continent to India and Pakistan in 1 947, India has not been guilty of aggressive acts against neighbouring countries. India’s record, in fact, is one of peace, although India was assailed many years ago from across its northern borders by the Government of the People’s Republic of China. In those circumstances I think there is some reason to believe that the nuclear industry being developed in India has been demonstrated to be for peaceful purposes. Even though it took India 20 years to create the environment within which it could explode a device, it has still, in its own circumstances, proceeded to announce that its plans are peaceful and not identifiable with potential military aggression.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition then went on to talk about Australia’s responsibility being the equivalent of that of the United States, particularly after the export of the yellowcake uranium oxide had commenced. It is very difficult to follow that reasoning because in fact Australia, in the context of the relatively modern period extending from the present time to the turn of the century, can never assume responsibilities comparable to those of the United States under any circumstances. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition failed, in my judgment, to put before the House evidence to support his statement.

He talked about the reactor at Jervis Bay and the fact that India had used a similar reactor for the production of the material from which the explosion of the nuclear device was arranged some years ago. I question that statement. Frankly, I think his statement is wrong. I understand, for example, that Australia’s reason for moving away from the concept of a nuclear reactor was directly related to the enormous cost of such a venture. I think it is highly questionable that India had had a comparable reactor established in that country. I urge members of the House to consider that, as one used to say at school, cum grano salis- with a grain of salt.

The interesting thing about the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in contrast to the speech of the former Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), was the relevation that the Australian Labor Party has in mind plans which would almost certainly indicate that it envisaged the development of a uranium export industry and subsequently the establishment of a uranium industry development authority in this country. He referred to the need for a uranium industry development authority- an authority to be responsible for standards- thereby giving the indication that he had no confidence at all in Australian companies to maintain standards which would be acceptable within their own organisations and which would be to the advantage of their own people. I must explain to the House that the industrial infrastructure necessary to establish an industry of this description, highly technical as it is, is achieved only as a result of years of work and the expenditure of many millions of dollars. Those facts are cast aside with a reckless abandon and a complete lack of sensitivity to the facts.

I would have thought that the truth of the matter would be that Austraiian companies, in defence of their own enormous investment, would need to maintain the highest standards. If in due course their shareholders are to earn the profits which have been referred to, those profits will be eyed with the customary greed by those in government who delight in taking from profit what is called the share for Consolidated Revenue. One may well hope that the standards will be high and the results will be successful.

The Deputy Leader’s last references to State rights and the federalism policy seemed to me to be almost absurd and purely political in their substance. It is an industry which requires, in the whole of the Commonwealth of Australia, Commonwealth control and Commonwealth comprehension. Because the Commonwealth has under the Constitution responsibility for the maintenance of overseas trade, it is essential that the Commonwealth be the responsible authority for the government of the industry.

Let me turn to the contrast between the speech made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and that made by the former Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We had put before us that psychosis to which I referred earlier. He talked of the danger of nuclear war. He did not go to any lengths to explain who the adversaries might be. He talked about industrial discipline, and the Government and its authorities using the heavy hand of government in order to maintain discipline within this industry. That was an interesting comment. In the years prior to the Second World War, and certainly subsequent to the Second World War, it became so clear that there were elements in this society at work to destroy the essence, the capacity and the efficiency of Australian industry that I can remember just prior to my first arrival in this distinguished House a whole page of the Sydney Morning Herald was taken to demonstrate that there were forces at work as a result of an international conspiracy whose purpose was to destroy the national economy of Australia. That page was dated July 1949 and I remind honourable gentlemen of the Opposition that the signatures at the bottom of that full page are those of Joseph Benedict Chifley and Herbert Vere Evatt. Just in case honourable members have forgotten those names I remind them that I am speaking of a former Prime Minister and a former AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs.

My friend the honourable member for Ried indicating much misery and much disturbance at the potentialities of the nuclear industry, did not see fit to make any reference to the development of that industry in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He did not see fit to make any reference to the development of the industry in the People’s Republic of China. He thought that any reference to those governments might put him in a position of criticism. It would seem to me to be reasonable to expect an honourable gentleman, so critical of his own Government, so mindful of the welfare and the safety of his own people, to point out that these industries have been developed to a great degree by potential adversary governments.

I noted only the other day in the newspapers that a distinguished serviceman of the United Kingdom was making statements in Peking which appeared to be acceptable to his hosts, to the effect that having regard to the threat of a nuclear war the People’s Republic of China and the United Kingdom should be seen as standing side by side against a potential adversary which he went on to name as the USSR. In the light of those circumstances, in the light of reality and in the light of Australia’s future, it is beyond doubt absurd and against the interests of Australia to do anything other than to encourage confidence in the future of this country among all its people. Today 4000 million mouths are opening and closing on this earth. It is predicted by world authorities that in 25 years there will be 8000 million people on this earth. In those circumstances it would be only the bravest of men who would contend that such an environment would offer no problem for a future government of Australia. It would be a brave man indeed who would not recognise that in the essential interests of the young people of today and of their children and their grandchildren, it would be a vital and absolute necessity that the capacity of the Australian nation be developed to the maximum degree.

It is absolutely essential for the future that Australia’s capacity to help within the region be enhanced to the highest possible degree. Certainly, one way to strike at that future development was made clear for all to read in 1949 by the late right honourable gentlemen to whom I referred earlier. They talked about an international conspiracy designed to destroy the future development of Australia. I say to those concerned about people and the threat of terrorism that reference to terrorists, nuclear industry and nuclear weapons is manifestly absurd.

Weapons are available which offer a greater degree of terror than nuclear weapons. I am referring to chemical warfare weapons and weapons which may be used to destroy whole populations. If they can be secured then without doubt they are the weapons that should be feared should they fall into the hands of terrorists. The terrorist as I see him will not come equipped with highly technical weapons. To suggest that is nothing but unadulterated drivel. What the terrorist will do is the sort of thing that is happening in Italy today. That is the kind of man we will have to cope with in the future, not someone armed with an atomic bomb.

Bearing those things in mind I ask the Opposition to review and to reveal the reality of its argument. Tell us more about the uranium development authority. Tell us more about the thinking that Opposition members have put into the provision of isotopes, supplies and standards that they have thought about and have had in mind in their own committees. Let us have the truth, for it is quite clear at least from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the reality is that the Australian Labor Party is well aware of the fact that there will be a uranium industry and that there will be plans for its development in the future. I conclude by saying that a lot of balderdash has been spoken in relation to this issue. I am absolutely in support of what the Government is doing. I hope it will get on with the job and do it a bit more quickly.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G.O’H. Giles)

AYES: 70

NOES: 32

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put.

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G. O ‘H. Giles)

AYES: 72

NOES: 34

Majority……. 38

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-The two most serious problems in the nuclear fuel cycle with which the Australian Labor Party is concerned relate to the disposal of nuclear waste and the impossibility at the present time for the Australian Government to ensure that Australian uranium will not be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The policy of the Australian Labor Party, which we on these benches represent, relates to both of those points. The problem with this Bill is that it does not deal with waste disposal in any meaningful way. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) saw fit to mislead this chamber the last time he spoke on this matter. On 25 August 1977 the Prime Minister said:

The technology for the handling, solidification and safe storage of the high level of radioactive liquids exists. It is now being developed to a commercial scale. This technology has not hitherto been put into full scale commercial use as the quantity of commercially produced waste has not warranted a fully commercial process.

What nonsense! The fact is that waste from conventional reactors, as distinct from fast breeders, produces very lethal liquid waste which includes the element Plutonium 239. It has been said before that Plutonium 239 remains virulent to human life for some quarter of a million to half a million years. It has a half life of some 24,000 years and this, of course, means that it remains injurious to human life for some half a million years.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– What a lot of rubbish!

Mr WEST:

– The honourable member might think it is a lot of rubbish but it is a fact. Despite Government supporters saying that there is no problem regarding the disposal of this waste, there is a very great problem because right now there are many millions of gallons of waste awaiting either final disposal or reprocessing. I relate to the Committee the comments of the General Accounting Office of the United States Energy Research and Development Commission in regard to this matter. That organisation is the successor to the United States Atomic Energy Commission. It stated that there are some 265 million gallons of high-level liquid waste from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The concentration of radioactivity in such waste is so great that if it were pumped into holes drilled deep into the earth- as one disposal scheme proposed- it would melt the surrounding rock. This waste still is not finally disposed of. It is being contained in steel tanks awaiting final disposal. This method of temporary storage is not safe. The report of the General Accounting Office continued:

Since the 1940s, eighteen Hanford’s tanks have spilled 430,000 gallons of high-level waste. From 1956 through 1958, 3 1 million gallons of partially decontaminated but still highly radioactive high-level waste were deliberately poured into the ground.

Regulations are tighter now but the waste is still getting away. In 1973, a Hanford leak that was undetected for fortyeight days spilled 1 1 5,000 gallons.

That is the situation which exists at the moment. I repeat: There is no known way to dispose of nuclear waste. It has been said that it may be possible- this was stated in the Fox report- to dispose of waste after vitrification in geologically stable formations. The fact is, however, that on this planet there are no geologically stable formations. Ten million years ago, during the tertiary period, Central Australia was under water. About that time the Kosciusko uplift created the Southern Highlands of New South Wales. Ten million years is quite a long time, probably longer than nuclear waste would remain harmful to human life, but we certainly are talking about a period of some half a million years. Half a million years ago man’s predecessor, Pithecanthropus, the ape man, roamed the earth.

Mr Morris:

– It is still happening.

Mr WEST:

– That is so. Look across the chamber! We are talking about the length of time it has taken man to develop. I point out to honourable members that no civilisation has ever lasted more than 3,000 years. I refer, of course, to the ancient Egyptian civilisation. There have been four ice ages in the last half million years with the sea rising and falling some 300 feet. Thirty thousand years ago, one-tenth of the time this waste will remain radioactive, Australia was joined to Asia. This is the type of geological situation in which honourable members on the other side of the chamber tell us nuclear waste can be stored for half a million years. The point is, as Mr Justice Fox himself finally admits, the theory that this waste can be stored in geologically stable formations is extremely debatable. On this planet nothing is geologically stable over a long period of time.

In the final few minutes available to me I wish to speak about the other matter that I raised earlier, that of the prevention of the use of AusTralian uranium to proliferate nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister said in the speech to which I have already referred that he was satisfied with the safeguards arrangements. Let me list those arrangements. It is said that we will sell only to countries which have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which have accepted the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards procedures and with whom we have reached a bilateral agreement and that the present nuclear nations will be required not to use Australian uranium to manufacture weapons. But apparently the Prime Minister has missed the very saliant point that even though those nations may not use our uranium to manufacture weapons the arrangements will release to them other stocks of uranium with which to manufacture weapons. The point I am making about the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty is that any nation can bale out of it on three months’ notice. Any nation can bale out of the IAEA safeguards on six months’ notice. Then it is said that we will have this bilateral agreement on which to fall back. Such countries as Iran and the Philippines would pull out of that agreement at any time if it suited them and then where would we be?

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They are stable countries.

Mr WEST:

-They are stable all right; they are run as dictatorships. Yet this Government is prepared to sell uranium to them. The IAEA safeguards themselves are most unsatisfactory. The IAEA currently has 79 inspectors of whom about 50 are engaged on, on site inspections. There are in the words of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) ‘194 nuclear power units operating in 21 countries’. The safeguards are basedhonourable members should listen to this- on what might be termed a retrospective risk factor. Let me explain that. According to the IAEA reports, instruments are located at key points in the country’s nuclear fuel cycle and the results are compared with that country’s accounting records. A serious discrepancy may be evidence that diversion has occurred. Honourable members should note the words ‘has occurred’. The diversion is detected after it has occurred. By any criterion this must be unsatisfactory. The safeguards are operating under the principle: Don’t do it or you may be caught’. But then, of course, the horse is out of the gate and it is too late to shut the gate; that is the fact of the matter. If we are concerned to assist attempts by the IAEA to impose more stringent safeguards on the recalcitrant Europeans- to name one potentive customer- if we wish to force customer nations to make greater efforts in and direct more finance towards waste disposal technology a moratorium policy serves our purpose better than an export policy. This would enable our voice to be listened to. It would not exclude us from attempts to strengthen safeguards and explore waste disposal techniques. The Prime Minister is relying on bilateral agreements and the present inadequate IAEA procedures which I have outlined. He is relying on faith rather than on hard-headed analysis. I know that the minds of honourable members opposite are closed and that their course is set but we are not talking to them tonight; we are talking to the men and women and the trade unionists of Australia -

The CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr NEWMAN:
Minister for National Development · Bass · LP

– in reply- I would like to have the opportunity of replying to some of the things that have been said tonight. It is interesting that the honourable member -

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– May I ask a question. Is the Minister closing the debate? If the Minister is not closing the debate, why is not the clock working?

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order ! The Minister in reply does not have a time limit.

Mr Holding:

– I rise on a point of order. Other honourable members on this side of the House are seeking to rise. For the Minister to rise in this way and to close the debate is really -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister is not closing the debate. He has a right to speak at any time without time restriction.

Mr NEWMAN:

– I am just giving the Deputy Whip a chance to jump up again and make a fool of himself but he is obviously not -

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I do not have to accept that sort of insult from the Minister or anybody else in this chamber. If the Minister is going to be so smart about this I will move that he be no longer heard.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I request the Minister to be a little more restrained in his remarks.

Mr NEWMAN:

-For the sake of-(Quorum formed) I really had no intention of being provocative but honourable members will understand in the light of the last two or three minutes why I made the comment. It intrigues me that, whenever we have a serious debate in this House which the Opposition purports to wish to take seriously, we always end up in this sort of degenerating position. As I was saying, what I would like to do, having sat here for the last couple of hours, is to answer some of the more significant points raised tonight by the Opposition. I begin by referring to the concluding words of the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) when he remarked: ‘Their minds are made up, the course is set’. The only thread that I can detect tonight -

Mr West:

– I said that your course was set.

Mr NEWMAN:

– The point I am about to make is that that comment applies entirely to the opposition side of the House. The only thread that I can detect from the debate tonight is that very same principle. When we debated the results of the inquiry conducted by Mr Justice Fox into this important matter, the sorts of arguments that we have heard tonight, mainly centred on the problems of waste and safeguards, were all raised then. All that we have heard tonight is a regurgitation of the philosophical block of the Opposition on this matter. As the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) so properly said, it is a psychotic block.

Mr Holding:

– A what?

Mr NEWMAN:

– A psychotic block. Honourable members opposite cannot see beyond their philosophical noses. They are dictated to by those forces in the Labor Party that are represented by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). Honourable members should not get upset. Can I just make three general points to the Opposition. We had an election on this matter. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is very difficult not to be provocative with the children who sit opposite in this place. We are supposed to be debating an important national matter. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) displayed a naivety and a childishness which are almost beyond belief.

I shall mention three important points. First of all, the people of Australia had a chance to judge whether Australia should mine, mill and export uranium. They made a resounding decision, despite the more hysterical pleas made to the electorate in December by people such as the honourable member for Reid. There is no question that the people of Australia wish to see uranium mined and exported. They are correct in that decision. It is about time that honourable members opposite realised that the people made a decision on that matter. The second point is that, however much honourable members opposite might like to twist statistics or quote selectively, the energy position facing the world, including Australia, is that in 1 985 this country will have to import more than half of the crude oil that it now uses. The export of our energy minerals, including uranium, will help to pay for that very large bill which we can only estimate at this stage but which will be at least in the order of $2 billion.

More important than our own position is that of the world. The world position is this. By the end of this century there will be a shortfall in fossil fuels. That is borne out by many estimates, for example the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Energy in the United Kingdom. The facts are there. More important than that is the fact that there will be a shortfall in fossil fuels. I draw the attention of the Opposition to a Green Paper on energy policy produced by the United Kingdom Department of Energy. I draw only one conclusion from it, and that is that it endorses what I have just said about the shortfall in fossil fuels. Because of that shortfall, the Department of Energy, the socialist brothers of the Opposition, has only one conclusion to make, and that is that nuclear electricity generation is the only alternative to make up that shortfall in the next 25 years.

That is the energy situation in Australia, and it is about time the Opposition put aside its philosophical or political commitments. As the honourable member for Cunningham said, the course is set; it cannot be changed. The Opposition must open its eyes and see what is happening in this country and in the world.

The third point I make is this: A lot has been said tonight about why the Atomic Energy Act is being used. Let me repeat so that it is very clearly understood by everybody in this chamber and everybody who will read the record that it was the Australian Labor Party as the Government of this country which chose to proceed with a Memorandum of Understanding -

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I take a point of order. Due to the fact that the Minister is not giving much information to the Committee, I move:

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: That the Minister for National Development be not further heard. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the noes have it. Is a division required?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I call the Minister.

Mr NEWMAN:

- Mr Chairman, I know you are operating under very difficult circumstances. Let me go back to the Memorandum of Understanding.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Chairman, never mind about the Minister going back to anything. Two members on this side of the chamber sought a division. Under the Standing Orders the voices of two members are sufficient to require a division.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am aware of the requirement. I had an indication from the front bench that a division was not required. I will put the question again: Is a division required?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There being only one voice -

Mr Holding:

– Yes. There are two voices.

Mr Newman:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I wish to make one point. Tonight the Opposition has engaged in -

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! There is no–

Mr Newman:

– I am speaking to a point of order. Give me a chance to get it out, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

-If the Minister has a point of order to take, he may proceed.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I must protest. The provisions of the Standing Orders have been met. You asked whether a division was required. Two members of the Opposition called for a division. What gives the Minister the right to speak now?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The request for a division has not been set aside. The Minister has taken a point of order.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I must rise again, Mr Chairman. The Standing Orders are quite clear. When a motion is put and a division is called for, I believe sincerely that the Standing Orders do not provide for any honourable member then to intervene in the proceedings of the chamber.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! The Minister took a point of order before I declared that the Committee will divide. I am receiving the point of order on that basis. I call the Minister to speak on the point of order.

Mr Newman:

– The only point I would now make is that I am glad that the people who are watching this debate tonight can see the quality of the members of the Opposition.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. There is no substance in the point of order. The Committee will divide.

Question put-

That the Minister for National Development be not further heard.

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 68

Majority…… 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

I wish to make a couple of other points in regard to the use of the Atomic Energy Act. Members of the Opposition have said that Mr Justice Fox stated that the Atomic Energy Act should not be used for the purpose for which it is to be used. He said that for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was in respect of the Aboriginal lands question. No honourable member can doubt that this Government is settling the Aboriginal lands question. The matter is still being settled and will be settled satisfactorily. Secondly, there are the questions of environmental control. Again, nobody can deny that the administrative procedures- the Acts that will follow this Bill after it is passed tonight- do not form the basis of a very good environmental control which will lead to a proper control in the operation of mines in the Northern Territory. Perhaps the most important point is that members of the Oppositionof course, this is typical of them when they engage in debates in the House and particularly when we are talking about nuclear energy and the Fox report- have an inclination to quote selectively or not completely. What Mr Justice Fox actually said about the Memorandum of Understanding and the Atomic Energy Act was that the Atomic Energy Act should not be used if there was not an Advisory Uranium Council.

Mr Uren- No.

Mr NEWMAN:
LP

– I am glad that the honourable member for Reid is listening carefully. It is clear that this Government will set up an Advisory Uranium Council.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to take a point of order. I will read correctly what is stated on page 248 of the Fox report.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order there is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Uren:

– Why does the Minister distort the fact?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! No point of order arises. I ask the honourable member for Reid to resume his seat.

Mr Uren:

– He is distorting the fact.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Reid will resume his seat. I call the Minister for National Development.

Mr NEWMAN:

– It is clear that this Government has proceeded to set up an Advisory Uranium Council. Therefore, taken in total -

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I think that the Minister deserves more than six Government supporters to listen to him and I draw your attention to the state of the House.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no substance in the point of order. I call the Minister.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I was not taking a point of order. I called your attention to the state of the House.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member for Burke did not express himself in those terms. I call the Minister.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I will do it now. I think that the Minister deserves more than six members of the Government to listen to him and

I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed).

Mr NEWMAN:

– It is interesting that in the couple of hours we have spent debating this Bill, one of the accusations continually made by members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), is that this Government was dishonest, that it presented inaccurate facts and so on. Let it be noted that the Opposition Deputy Whip- and people in this chamber I hope will note it- had the audacity to get up here and tell blatant lies about how many members of the Government were present in the chamber.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I take a point of order. I ask for a withdrawal of that statement by the Minister. Nobody in this chamber has the right to accuse me of standing up and telling blatant lies, let alone the Minister from Tasmania.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! I request the Minister to withdraw.

Mr NEWMAN:

-Mr Chairman, with due respect to you, I will argue this because -

Mr Holding:

– You will not argue it because it is unparliamentary.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I ask that the Minister withdraw.

The CHAIRMAN:

-The honourable member for Burke will resume his seat. I have ruled on the point of order. I request the Minister to accept the ruling, withdraw, and proceed with his speech.

Mr NEWMAN:

-May I just say this to you, Mr Chairman–

The CHAIRMAN:

-Order! Will the Minister withdraw?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Chairman, how often do I have to stand to encourage you to enforce the rules of this House?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is the honourable member for Burke taking a point of order?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, I am, sir.

The CHAIRMAN:

– What is the honourable member’s point of order?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The point of order I am taking is that the Standing Orders of this House are loud and clear. It has been ruled by successive Speakers and by successive Chairmen that it is unparliamentary for one member to say of another member that he is telling blatant lies. I have asked for a withdrawal, but you are prepared to hear argument on the matter.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I request the Minister to withdraw his remarks without qualification.

Mr NEWMAN:

– I withdraw, and that is out of respect for you, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Without qualification.

Mr NEWMAN:

– I withdraw without qualification. A lot of things have been said in this debate. Accusations have been made about the Supervising Scientist and his fitness to hold that position. It has been that sort of debate, aimed at a senior public servant who has an excellent record, whose experience and knowledge of environmental and health matters are without question among the best in the country, whose influence in international forums where these things are debated is without peer, and who has represented Australia effectively in those forums. His reputation has been called into doubt. I want to put it on record that the Government has absolute faith in the man who has been appointed to the temporary position of Supervising Scientist, in his experience, his qualifications, and his record. That has to be said.

Secondly, I should make a point about the Australian Safeguards Office. I would like to make it clear again for the record that the Australian Safeguards Office works absolutely independently of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. It is true that the Office reports to the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, but to me through the Chairman. The work being done now internationally by the Australian Safeguards Office through the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna on the application of safeguards is effective.

There is one other thing I would like to say, and then I think we had better complete this debate because the Opposition obviously is in no mood to hear a rational argument on the subject. The Opposition put the case that in 1974 it tried under the Atomic Energy Act to introduce regulations that were argued and defeated in the Senate, and that somehow that is inconsistent with the Government’s decision now to use the Atomic Energy Act to let the Ranger operation proceed. Let us get the facts absolutely clear. The regulations that the then Minister for Minerals and Energy sought to introduce had no more intention than to nationalise the uranium industry in Australia. He proposed that there should be regulations prohibiting, except under licence, the mining of prescribed minerals in the Territories, the milling of prescribed minerals in the States under the defence power, and the production, possession, treatment and use of prescribed substances. I say again that if the record of that debate in the Senate is read objectively, it will be seen that the opposition in the Senate was only because of the one fact that the move was an attempt to nationalise the mining of uranium in this country. The falsehood by the Opposition was in trying to pretend it was otherwise. A much more important implication is that here we have a succession of Opposition members saying how dreadful it is to mine uranium, yet in 1974 so intent were they on mining, milling and exporting uranium that they were willing to nationalise the industry to do it. If that is not hypocritical, I do not know what is.

The aims of this Bill simply are, firstly, to ensure that the memorandum of understanding entered into by the Labor Government can now be effective, and that the joint venture with Ranger should proceed. Secondly, the Bill will allow for proper safeguards, and the safeguards we have entered into internationally with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and any bilateral agreements we may have, to be implemented in Australia. They are the two aims of the Bill. On that proposition I think we should close this debate.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I could say in response to the Minister -

Motion (by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 67

NOES: 33

Majority…… 34

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

That the Bill be agreed to.

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

AYES: 67

NOES: 33

Majority……. 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Newman)- by leaveproposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Mr Deputy Speaker, there are two basic objections -

Motion (by Mr Hodges) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question put.

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 67

NOES: 33

Majority……. 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1736

DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT OF AUSTRALIA’S URANIUM RESOURCES

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 10 April, on the following paper presented by Mr Anthony:

Development and Export of Australia’s Uranium Resources Ministerial Statement, 10 April 1978- and on motion by Mr Newman:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-There are two basic objections to the proposition put forward in the ministerial statement of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony).

Motion (by Mr Hodges) put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr P. H. Drummond)

AYES: 66

NOES: 33

Majority…… 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1737

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 April, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr FIFE:
Acting Leader of the House · Farrer · 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 suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering both this Bill and the Environmental Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) 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, that you permit the subject matter of both Bills to be discussed in this debate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I shall confine my remarks in this debate to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1978, which is not as memorable as the principal Act of 1970 which it proposes to amend. Indeed, I think sadly that it erodes the principles that arose in 1976 out of an inquiry initiated by the previous Government, of which I had the honour to be a member. Nevertheless, the Opposition does not want to delay the passage of the greater part of this Bill. Aborigines are waiting for it. They want some action on land rights. It is accessary that some of the machinery measures in the amending Bill should go through to enable this to be done. I point out one or two defects in the Bill which the Opposition proposes to object to and discuss in detail at the Committee stage.

The Bill removes the power of the Aboriginals to decline to make an agreement with the director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. The Opposition sees no need for this. It sees no reason why Aboriginal people should not have priority over parks, wildlife, land, fauna and flora. In fact, the Opposition sees every reason why Aboriginals should have a priority in those matters. At the same time the amending measure protects mining interests from disclosure of incriminating material which concerns environmental protection. It is proposed to penalise land council representatives for disclosing such material. The penalty will be a $1,000 fine or six months imprisonment. I am sure that if honourable members were to give their attention to this proposal they would see that it can do nothing for Aboriginal land rights. In fact, it will doexactly the reverse. In effect, it will gag people from making public matters of which they become aware in the performance of their function as members of a land council, a land trust or any other committee of deliberation.

That secrecy provision prevents their disclosing that material to the public and has no justification in the second reading speech of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner). His second reading speech might be summed up by saying that it claims that the legislation is designed implement land rights for Aborigines and to tidy up a few machinery matters.

Mr Baillieu:

– Are you against that?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– No. I have said already that the Opposition does not propose to oppose the Bill as a whole. If the honourable member had been listening he would know that I have said already that I am pointing out one or two defects in the legislation which I think are unnecessary and which we do propose to oppose at the Committee stage. This Bill does not represent just an amendment of existing legislation; at the same time it represents an abridgment of land rights. It protects the power of corporate secrecy and makes Aborigines impotent to challenge a company if it considers that disclosing its technical information might tend to incriminate it in regard to the protection of the environment.

This trend is not so dangerous in this Bill that all Aborigines will rise up in indignation as they certainly did, for example, concerning the recent shameful legislation introduced by the Queensland Government concerning Aurukun and Mornington Island which firmly denies land ownership and mineral and quarrying rights to Aboriginal shires. But the trend is there in these particularly disturbing aspects which I have pointed out. I ask the Minister and the House to consider these aspects and to see whether a further amendment is not advisable. I think also that the Government should realise that amending legislation to gain a short term relief in our balance of payments crisis or for any of the other purposes which have been brought forward during the debate, such as to promote the accelerated processing, mining and export of uranium, should not take precedence over justice to our oppressed indigenous people, which is the theme which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs very rightly has stressed from the outset of his accepting the Aboriginal Affairs Ministry.

It is my purpose to argue that that right to justice should take precedence over any supposed urgency to promote a package of uranium Bills. Previous Opposition speakers on this cluster of uranium Bills have made it clear that there are alternatives to nuclear power; that there are alternatives to a headlong and hellbent development at all costs. I do not think that Government supporters deny that. At times one or two speakers from the Government side have warned of an international conspiracy to weaken Australia. Of course, there are extreme views on both sides. On the matter of international conspiracy I could warn people just as strongly about international companies, combines or consortia which are committed at all costs to recouping what is in fact a multi-billion dollar investment in nuclear power. Most of the contracting companies stand to sustain a loss in the order to billions of dollars if the winding down of nuclear power stations, which has started already in the United States- at least the stations are in a waiting position- continues. So this allegation of international conspiracy can be argued both ways.

Here in Australia- indeed, in this very city- we have a far more sensible proposition to beat the power crisis; a far more permanent and complete solution to our balance of payments problems; and a far better remedy for the parlous state of our motor industry in particular and, indeed, of the world’s power generation crisis. We have this right here in this city of Canberra. We can offer the world a better solution than uranium mining to all the problems which uranium mining is supposed to solve. We hear that all the world is crying out for uranium. Since 22 February, in the first sitting week this year, I have had question No. 191 on the Notice Paper. It is directed to the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) and asks him about a submission from the Department of Engineering Physics of the Australian National University which was presented to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources as long ago as May 1976. That submission expresses the view, based on much sounder evidence than the evidence on which the uranium lobbyists base their arguments, that the waste problem, the security problem, can be solved. This view is based on extensive theoretical investigation, analogous commercial experience and promising experimental confirmation. Also, they can produce a prototype solar-powered energy transfer and storage system which can be made to work at costs comparable to those of existing electricity generation in outback towns in Australia.

In addition, it should be cheaper than nuclear power; it would be well within the production capabilities of Australia, which nuclear power generation certainly is not; it would be more amenable to flexibility of siting and power storage to compensate for weather and seasonal fluctuations; and it would be more economically adaptable to evolution from a small generation complex to a large scale one. It would be far more adaptable than nuclear power generation, which has no adaptability of that kind at all. Without a multi-million dollar unit there is no power generation. In fact, in this regard the project of the Department of Engineering Physics of the Australian National University is far more promising than the competitive investigation being undertaken at a much greater cost in the United States, where they have large scale power units with reflectors which have to be on a large centralised scale. The ANU project lends itself to flexibility of size, greater economy and production within Australia for export in a way which would restore our ailing motor car industry.

All that information was submitted to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources back in May 1976. The project has lots of side benefits, which I shall not go into but which I mentioned in my question to the Minister. After two and a half months the Minister has still not answered that question, although obviously it is an urgent one. If there is a power crisis we need to develop this alternative which is, I repeat, more promising than nuclear power because it is cleaner, cheaper and much better proved than the technology to cope with nuclear power waste disposal and security for which we are still waiting. These problems do not arise with this alternative. So let us not kid ourselves that the Government’s package of uranium is the best answer to the problems which the Government is posing- the problems of our need to export, our need for a better balance of payments, our need to meet the world’s energy needs or whatever. If the Government is genuine about this, let it put some research money into this project at the ANU. The ANU asked for only $4m, yet we can give tens of millions to atomic research at Lucas Heights which, as previous Opposition speakers have indicated, in many cases is outdated.

The Opposition has no formal amendment to encompass all the amendments which have been requested by the Northern Land Council because these amendments have been submitted to the Minister. They have been discussed by the Northern Land Council with the Minister’s officers. We are very severely limited as to time, but I seek the Minister’s assurance, if he can give it- I trust that eventually he will- that he will include the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases, as recommended by the Fox report, in the Ranger uranium areas in the Alligator Rivers region, or that he will in some way include those leases in the land rights proposals. We would appreciate the Minister’s assurance on this point. I have no doubt that he means exactly what he said in this first sentence of his second reading speech:

This Bill is intended to give effect to the Government’s decisions on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry as far as they affect Aboriginal land rights.

However, he has created some doubt on this point by saying that any grant to the Land Council of land from the Mudginberry and Munmarlary pastoral leases would depend on that land being leased as national parkland to the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. This would be harmless enough except that the Minister may intervene to appoint an arbitrator if the Land Council fails to see eye to eye with the Director. In effect, Aborigines are to be tolerated and trusted to a very limited extent. They are not to be given prior dominion over the land and its natural assets. That may be given to the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I would feel much reassured if the Minister would for once have discussions with the Land Council first and the mining interests last.

There is one other aspect of the Minister’s speech which has relevance to the sheaf of Bills dealing with the uranium issue which we have been discussing. As I have indicated these are aimed at uranium export first, not Aboriginal rights first. Since the legislation has been in operation- that is, since 1976- it has been found that some amendments are required to ensure the effective administration and intended interpretation of the Act. The Opposition welcomes this. The Government has moved with reasonable and commendable promptness on this, as it did in relation to the original Land Rights Act, to see that land rights are given to Aborigines. All I am asking is that this consideration be given priority in those other aspects which I have mentioned. If it is possible that an Act which is only two years old needs amendment on purely administrative grounds- the Opposition does not dispute that- this should persuade us that the major thrust of the legislative package could also be subject to review. If it is necessary to review minor, trivial administrative matters after an Act has been in operation for two years, surely the Opposition is entitled to question the validity of an Act passed 30 years ago by a previous Labor government. Yet speaker after speaker on the Government side has said: ‘This is what Chifley said and now you are welshing on it’. Surely if amendments are required to a two-year old Act on minor administrative matters, the Opposition is entitled to review its views on major issues after 30 years.

The Government says: ‘Well, we have had plenty of debate. We have had public exposure of these issues. The public has had plenty of time to make up its mind. ‘ If it is genuine in that claim it should admit also that perhaps the public could change its mind with a full and free ranging debate. Perhaps the Opposition could change its mind on some matters. The Government cannot expect that the Atomic Energy Act of a former generation- when atomic potential was seen outstandingly as a feature of the Cold War- should be equally relevant to the energy crisis of 1978. Surely today there are some glimmerings of hope of an alternative to World War III, which did not seem terribly likely at the time of the formulation of the Atomic Energy Act. The headlong and heedless rush to the brink by the Government has been well described as neglecting the crises that face the world instead of trying to solve them as the Government claims. It is leading us there ever faster in the name of deferring those crises- the energy crisis, the national economic crisis and the national balance of payments crisis. This reminds me of the rather blinkered foresight of a Russian gentleman. He said: ‘You Westerners are rushing towards a precipice with your greed for more and more . . . your waste of nonreplaceable raw materials.’ He then added smugly: ‘We shall overtake you’. That is the approach adopted by the Government of this lucky country. There is no justification for this headlong and heedless rush into the export of uranium when the demand for it is winding down, when the whole world is having second thoughts and when here, in the city of Canberra, a reasonable, sensible and sane alternative has been neglected since May 1976.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

-This is a very important Bill because it will enable the Government to proceed expeditiously with the implementation of some aspects of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act which have not been capable of implementation to date. I refer particularly to the important provisions which will enable the creation of original trusts to enable Aborigines to hold the title to land. It is very regrettable that there have been technical matters which, to this point of time, have precluded the implementation of this very important aspect of this legislation. We have seen the creation of the councils that were envisaged in the Act to offer advice but the holding of land by the traditional owners, which was the very important conceptual arrangement envisaged in this legislation, has not been able to proceed to date. Therefore, as a supporter of the Government, I welcome the amendments which are designed to enable this legislation to be implemented fully and at the earliest possible date.

This Bill is, of course, linked with the numbers of important Bills designed to give effect to the implementation of the second Fox report, the proper name of that report being the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry. The honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) mentioned the general conceptual arrangement into which that report fits and the way in which this legislation relates to that report. It is important, if the general package of Bills relating to uranium mining is to proceed- we have already voted on that in the House tonight- that the amendments to give effect to the protection of Aboriginal interests are carried into legislative form. I therefore welcome the endorsement of the spokesman for the Opposition of support, subject to the qualifications he mentioned, some of which I propose to discuss, to the passing of this legislation as soon as possible.

There is no doubt that this legislation was a landmark and I am very pleased to be a part of the Government that brought legislation in this form into effect and gave land rights to the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory. The importance of this legislation, in respect of its machinery aspects, is to give effect to the implementation of the original Bill which was subsequently enacted into law. In summary, those provisions were to enable Aboriginal and claims made to certain land in the Alligator Rivers Region, known as Stage 2, to become part of a national park. The Bill provides also for the lease of Aboriginal land as national parkland. It provides that the common case of a mining interest which has been approved but not granted is covered by this Act. This is a machinery matter to ensure that mining interests are not outside the operations of the Act itself. The Bill is designed to provide for the adjustment of the southern boundary of the Ranger project and to provide for environmental information and inspection rights for the Aboriginal Northern Land Council.

These matters were specifically covered by Mr Justice Fox and his colleagues in their report. They were seen as being important in the framework of legislation that would permit uranium mining if the Government made the decision to proceed with uranium mining. This Bill is important because it seeks to protect the interests of the Aboriginal people who live in the region and whose rights are affected by uranium mining.

Reference was made by the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) to the specific provisions that I have mentioned briefly relating to the provision of environmental information and also the inspection rights that the Northern Land Council will enjoy as a result of this legislation. When we give rights to people to go in and to inspect other people’s records and activities and when we give them the right, as is to be given under the Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Bill which is part of this cognate debate to be able to go to the court to protect those rights, there is no doubt in my mind that provision must be made to ensure that information that might be gained but which perhaps is not relevant will not be divulged willy-nilly.

There is no doubt in my mind that, when we provide for a new situation in which information can be obtained- and it is very broad ranging information- and when we provide for a proper forum in which that matter might be reviewed, as we have in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill that we are debating tonight, those people who receive that information are required to act responsibly. Secrecy is a very important part of acting responsibly. If a person can simply divulge information without being held accountable for the consequences of that action, there is no need for responsibility. Information can be made available, that can be quite harmful in a commercial sense to the parties involved, without regard to the proper interests of those involved.

The legislation proceeds to deal with a number of technical matters which I will also mention. It deletes section 4 (2) (b) which deals with identifying individually Aboriginals who are to hold land. It allows a wider definition of the Aboriginal beneficiaries of land and thus will minimise the delay in the issuing of titles. It provides for the protection of witnesses who voluntarily appear before the Land Commissioner and for the protection of the Commissioner himself so that when he acts in a judicial responsibility and when he administers oaths the people who have been before him will be protected.

The Bill facilitates the closure of the former Aboriginal Benefits Trust Fund and the opening of the new fund, the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account. It also takes into account the possible creation of a new Aboriginal land council. Honourable members may recall that in the original debate in this House on this legislation considerable concern was expressed that Aboriginals such as those from Bathurst Island and Melville Island may want to have a separate land council with special advisers to take into account their special interests. The amending legislation envisages that it might be possible to create that separate body and facilitate that action.

Provision is made also for providing funds so that, before any moneys become available from the source of uranium mining, the land councils will have funds with which to operate. The legislation also facilitates the registration of Aboriginal land in the register used normally for the registration of interests. Those are essentially machinery provisions but they are important. It is usual in important and complex legislation of this nature for amendments of this kind to be made. For various reasons legislation is often rushed through. Because we want to give effect to our good intentions, matters such as this which appear so obvious now can be overlooked. That does not mean that the overall thrust of the legislation must be considered in order to reassess it. Some honourable members have been suggesting that the very nature of the legislation should be reassessed. They have put to the House that there should be other amendments made to the Act. Some of those amendments have been proffered by the mining industry. The fact of the matter is that in relation to the amendments which have not been pursued by the Government the approach has been taken- quite properly, I think- that we have to see how the negotiations proceed between the parties involved in protecting Aboriginal interests and the interests of those who wish to mine and we ought not to pre-empt those discussions and negotiations before we have seen how they work.

The thrust of the legislation has been inhibited by the machinery matters in operation that we have mentioned. Of course, we are not yet at a point where the possible conflicts that might arise between one form of vested interests and another can be seen with the utmost clarity. I do not think it is yet the time to review the basic thrust of this legislation. It is important that we see how it operates and how it will operate for the benefit of the Aboriginal people.

In conjunction with the amendments to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Act we are debating the Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Bill. This Bill is designed to give effect to the Government’s decision accepting the recommendation of the second Fox report that legislative action be taken to enable the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and the Northern Land Council to enforce the environmental protection provisions, particularly by way of injunction, and to compel action and to give the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory a wide definition as to the exercise of its jurisdiction in such cases.

I do not think any honourable member could complain about the width of these provisions. It ought to be noted that they are wide in their operation and that the Court is given considerable jurisdiction in relation to enforcement and to the remedies that it has available. I guess that that is the expected result of this legislation and that is what the legislation seeks to do. I point out the width of the definition of ‘mining operations’. The crux of this legislation is that the mining operations will be capable of review. The definition is made in such a way as to include the operations and activities directly connected with mining. It also includes prospecting, inspection, milling, transportation, storage, construction of mine works and the infrastructure. Some honourable members have suggested that those provisions are somewhat too wide and that they may leave the way open for the Northern Land Council to institute vexatious proceedings. I cannot imagine that a public official would take vexatious proceedings but suggestions have been made that it might be possible as a result of the width of these provisions for such action to be taken. The very nature of the provisions is such that they have to be enforced by a court of law. I believe that this legislation as drafted provides the court with the power to deal with people who take such vexatious proceedings. It is drafted on the basis that the court would be able to deal with the parties involved in a way in which one would expect- by fine, by failing to make orders or in other ways available to courts- to ensure that proceedings are not brought vexatiously but only genuinely, in the belief that the environment is in danger and in need of protection as a result of the mining activity and a breach of the provisions that had been specifically entered into by the parties involved.

Debate interrupted.

page 1742

ADJOURNMENT

Trade Unions -The Parliament- Australia-Papua New Guinea Boundary- Universal Textiles, Tasmania- National Energy Policy

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

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr BIRNEY:
Phillip

-Last week two seemingly unrelated events occurred- one was Anzac Day, the other was the infamous sacking of Noel Latham by the Broken Hill City Council. Honourable members and indeed not only the people of New South Wales but also all Australians are entitled to ask and to be told exactly what was that relationship. We commemorate Anzac Day as an occasion to remember with pride and homage our glorious dead, those who paid the supreme sacrifice, those Australians whose blood was spilt on foreign fields. They died so that the people of Australia could live in peace, harmony and tranquility, free from oppression and dictatorial regulation of the basic freedoms. The principle so enunciated has been abrogated, cast to the four winds and virtually spat upon by those creatures whose iron fists control the Barrier Industrial Council and the Broken Hill City Council and who have a stranglehold over the destiny and livelihoods of thousands of ordinary decent Australian men and women. Its edict is conform. Step out of line and the sacred principles for which our men died and which are the inherent right of us all will be jackbooted into the dirt.

I am proud to have fought at Noel Latham’s side for some 13 months and to applaud his victories in every legal forum that was open to him. His cause was just and found to be so. His stand was vindicated, and his courage in the face of threats and actual violence, both to himself and his wife and family, should be applauded by all those who cherish the great ideals for which our Diggers gave their all. Applause is not enough; action is now required. I have examined the possibility of propelling the Broken Hill City Council into court for denying natural justice to a trade unionist and an ex-member of the merchant marines who, on anyone’s say so, has done nothing wrong and has given long, loyal and valuable service to the Council. However, this may not be legally feasible. What would be feasible, however, is a simple amendment to the law to provide for a right of appeal to a court, which amendment would not only safeguard Latham’s democratic rights but also the rights of others who may find themselves on the receiving end of union muscle. After all, Latham’s rights are representative of the rights of all Australians, rights that Parliament is duty bound to protect.

If the New South Wales Government keeps on turning a blind eye to the overall situation- to do a Pontius Pilate in this case- by washing its hands of the affair, the assumption can be reliably made that it would act similarly in similar circumstances where any other responsible worker in New South Wales was the recipient of union strong arm tactics. Surely then the New South Wales Government exists to protect the democratic rights of its citizens. If it fails in this its primary responsibility then it has failed the people. It becomes undeserving of their trust, and its parliamentarians must be cast from office at the first available opportunity by the very people who put them there. The message I wish to get across tonight loudly and clearly is that it is no longer simply a matter of Latham or the BIC or the Broken Hill City Council. It has escalated well beyond that. This is a fight by all men and women of peace and goodwill and by all those who stand for the democratic way of life against any duly elected representative of the people who pays lip service only to the very principles for which the flower of this nation died. I can only show the people of New South Wales the way to right this terrible wrong. For their own sakes and for the sakes of their children and indeed for posterity they must demand, as I do, the recall of the New South Wales Parliament from its S-month recess to pass the necessary legislation that clearly only it can pass. If it fails to take this action, as sure as the night follows the day, its end should be inevitable, permanent and justified.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

-Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr Hodgman:

– You should be on your honeymoon, Clyde.

Mr HOLDING:

– I should be. Unfortunately last night while I was absent from the House a matter was raised by the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) which virtually constituted a grave personal attack on myself in terms of the role I play in this Parliament. I deplore the terms that were used by the honourable member. Basically what the honourable member for McMillan said was that I had somehow demeaned the standards of this House by moving a censure motion in respect of the personal financial involvements of the former Treasurer. Let me say to this House that in moving that motion I acted completely within the forms and procedures of this Parliament on a matter of grave public concern, and all of the facts that I presented to the House were put on the basis that they were facts. It was a matter that could have been answered by the former Treasurer. He chose not to answer it, but the matter was dealt with by the House.

As far as I was concerned, by virtue of my past involvement in events in my State, I was given that duty by the Opposition, and I discharged it.

To that extent, the way in which the matter was raised was not even personal. What concerns me is that the honourable member for McMillan then chose by way of an answer to that allegation, knowing that I was absent from the House, making no attempt to communicate with me and without making any specific charges, simply to make charges by way of innuendo and to raise question.

Mr Baillieu:

– That is what you did with Lynch.

Mr HOLDING:

– If the honourable gentleman looks at Hansard, he will find that every statement I made in that debate was a matter of fact and can be proved to be a matter of fact. What I raised related to a function that was relevant to the functions performed in a public capacity by the former Treasurer. I have been in parliamentary institutions and have dealt with more senior members of the Liberal Party than the honourable member who interjected.

Mr Ruddock:

-So what?

Mr HOLDING:

– I think it is important to say this. In another Parliament of which I was a member for 15 years, not once in the political cut and thrust of debate was a man’s family- his children or his wife- ever brought into a debate. That is a fact. I deplore one of the developments that seems to be taking place in this community. Unfortunately it occurs to members on both sides of the House. If a son of a member of Parliament breaks a traffic law or is involved in an offence it becomes a headline. To that extent the media is involved in a double standard. I would have thought that honourable members would have understood that. Therefore I do not mind what the honourable member for McMillan wants to say about me, although all of it was inaccurate.

I deplore the fact that he chose the venue of this House and its privileges to make an attack upon my former wife. I regard that as a matter of complete contempt, and I would say to the honourable member that he at least owes that lady an apology. If he does not want to do that, let him have the courage to make the allegation outside the Parliament where he can have an opportunity to defend his allegation. As he lacked the courage to inform me that he would operate in the politically snide way in which he did in the House last night, I do not think he will avail himself of that opportunity.

I would like to move to the substances of the general methods by which the honourable member operated last night. He raised a whole series of questions. He did not make one allegation. I say very simply in the time available to me that at no stage have I ever personally been involved in a situation in which I have made one penny from land development. I challenge the honourable member, if he believes he has any evidence, not to rely on imputation or raising questions, but either to use the forms of this House or to have the courage to make the statements outside the House. I put the position as simply as that. I regard the statements of the honourable gentleman as doing him no credit and as doing this House no credit. It is sad that a man can spend 17 years in Parliament dealing with probably some of the best representatives of the Liberal Party of Australia and he has to come to the national Parliament in order to find this sort of attack being made not upon himself but upon a member of his family.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

–

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Simon:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for McMillan is entitled to speak in the adjournment debate if he wishes to do so.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

-In that case I will make my comments very brief. I do not want to take up the time of other honourable members who wish to speak in the adjournment debate. I want to make two points very clearly to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding). The first one is, as he said, that no allegation was made against him or his former wife. The comment which was made and the questions which were asked were a demonstration of the techniques which are being adopted by the Opposition, including the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. It was done by me with the same sort of distaste which apparently the honourable member for Melbourne Ports now has to demonstrate a point on the very issue he has raised in the adjournment debate tonight. I refer to the standards of this House. That was the reason for raising that point. I make no further comment on that.

The other point I would like to comment upon was also alluded to by the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) last night. I adopted a course of action which was a matter of tradition. Apparently it was referred to by the honourable member for Burke last evening. I refer to the notification of an honourable member if some comment is to be made about him. Certainly I would have adopted that course if that was the precedent which had been established by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports when the allegations were made against the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch). Those allegations were not notified to the honourable member for Flinders. I have it on his authority that that is the case. I adopted exactly the same course of action. I conclude my remarks by saying that I want to put a couple of mixed metaphors. The first one relates to it being hot in the kitchen. I cannot remember the exact words used. The other one is about putting a bun in the oven. I suggest that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports does not like what is being cooked.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak on a point of personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-I call the honourable member for Melbourne Ports on a point of order.

Mr Holding:

– The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Simon) said that in respect of a censure motion which I moved, the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Lynch), had no notice of the matter. I complied completely with the forms of the House. Notice was given to the House. The matter remained on the Notice Paper for three days. I believe that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the honourable member for Flinders, can read. There was no way that he could not have been fully apprised of the matter and the issues that were involved.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises.

Mr Holding:

– At a time -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Holding:

– I did not raise this as a point of order. I raised it as a matter of personal explanation. I have been misrepresented.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman did not request leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr Holding:

– I did. With great respect to the Chair, I said that I had been misrepresented and I rose to make a personal explanation. Mr Deputy Speaker, you gave me the call.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member did not seek leave to make a personal explanation. He could have used it as a manner of speaking. Does the honourable gentleman now wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr Holding:

– I seek leave. I will not reiterate what I have said. I will not take up the time of the House. I simply say -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I feel that in the interests of the adjournment debate the matter of a personal explanation should be left to a more appropriate time.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to take a point of order. Under the Standing Orders, an honourable member who claims to have been misrepresented in a debate is entitled to explain the pan of his speech in which he was misrepresented.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I think that you have already given me the call. I will be very quick. The honourable member for McMillan was wrong again. I used the forms of the House to give notice of my motion. The former Treasurer would have been clearly apprised of that fact. The debate in which I was involved and in which I led on behalf of the Opposition was called on at the convenience of the Government as a result of a motion moved by the Government. For the honourable gentleman to say under those circumstances that the Minister who was the subject of that censure motion had not been notified is about as accurate as every one of the other filthy comments that he has made.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I must ask the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to withdraw that expression.

Mr Holding:

– Which particular comment do you wish me to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member is aware of the expression. I am referring to his final remarks.

Mr Holding:

– Are you referring to the ‘filthy comments’? I will say that the comments of the honourable gentleman that were made by the honourable gentleman -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will withdraw the remark.

Mr Holding:

– I withdraw the word ‘filthy’ and I say that the honourable member’s remarks were as inaccurate and dishonest as all the other comments that he made.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to refer to -

Mr Hodgman:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a point of order. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) has spoken in the adjournment debate. I suggest that you call an honourable member from this side of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I accepted the remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports as a personal explanation.

Mr BRYANT:

– I think that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) should listen very carefully to what I have to say, because my remarks affect him. I am speaking about some of Australia’s offshore islands. This afternoon I asked the Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock) a question with reference to a Press release issued a few weeks ago in which he said that three islands in the Torres Strait area were now no longer to be regarded as part of Australia because research had shown that they were not included in the boundaries at the time that the territorial boundaries were drawn. The Minister has not indicated to us what this research is. I could not find in all the documents that are readily available in this Parliament any evidence to support his statement. Two issues are involved in this matter. Firstly, there is the general question of whether this area is part of Australia. The second issue is whether an area that has been part of the Australian scene and drawn on every map as such for 99 years should be permitted to be altered by administrative decree. I think that it is a piece of administrative arrogance for the Minister to start to alter the frontiers of Australia in this way.

This is the situation. For about the last six years a debate has been proceeding with Papua New Guinea in respect of the boundaries between Australia and Papua New Guinea. There has been a tendency on the part of this Governmentthere was also a sign of it under the Labor Government- to think that some of the islands in the Torres Strait should well be transferred to Papua New Guinea. I must remind the House that the Torres Strait Islanders are Australians. They regard themselves as Australians and they have been Australian for the last 99 years. The Torres Strait Islanders are just as much a part of Australia and just as much Australians as the people of Brunswick and Coburg in my electorate, the people of Hamilton in the Wannon electorate or the people of Camberwell Junction in the electorate of Kooyong. The fact that they are 2,000 miles away, happen to be black and happen to be Torres Strait Islanders, ought not in any way to remove them from proper consideration in this Parliament.

The boundary between the two countries has been drawn very close to the mainland of Papua New Guinea. But that is not unique. There are plenty of instances of that throughout the world. Three islands in the area are inhabited. They are Boigu Island, Dauan Island and Saibai Island. About 600 or 700 people live on those islands and about 350 people are registered on the electoral roll. About five or six years ago when this matter first arose I wrote to every one of those people and asked whether they wanted to remain part of Australia. I want to make this point quite clear. In fact, I was about to make a personal explanation on the matter today. I am not raising this matter as an advocate for or on behalf of the Premier of Queensland. He started in the field some long time after I did. I have no doubt that we would make a very good ticket. In fact I find that there is nothing more prejudicial to one’s case in this country than to have the Premier of Queensland on one’s side. There are three small uninhabited islands. I do not know whether they are of much use as real estate.

Mr Hodges:

– Do they come out at low tide?

Mr BRYANT:

-They are above the sea at high and low tides. Actually, they are in Queensland, and the honourable member for Petrie, coming from that State, ought to know his geography well enough to understand that. The islands of Kawa, Mata Kawa and Kussu are only a few hundred yards from the mainland of Papua New Guinea. As I understand it, the Foreign Minister has decided that in the boundaries that are drawn, where the reference is to the Talbot group, these islands are not part of the Talbot group and, therefore, are not part of Australia. The documents that can be read about this have associated with them statements by Premiers of Queensland, by administrators and so on. I am asking Parliament to insist particularly that no Minister of any State or of this place be allowed to have that sort of authority- to make a decision to alter the boundaries of Australia by administrative decree.

It is not just a question of the islands, although I think that might well be important to the people there, but it is a question of the way we conduct government. To give away some of the offshore islands in a throwaway, offhand manner is a threat to everyone in Australia. The Government might start in the south next and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) might find himself part of Macquarie Island or something like that. I ask the Parliament to give serious consideration to this matter and to remember that we are dealing with the rights and privileges of a group of people who are just as much part of Australia as we are.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

-I desire to report to the House that last night the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), Mr Derek Holden, who is the State Secretary of the Textile Workers Union in Tasmania, Mr Paul Houlihan, who is State Secretary of the Federated Clerks Union, Mr John Gyselman, who is State Assistant Secretary of the Australian Metal Workers and Shipwrights Union, and I attended a meeting which extended over a period of three hours with the executives of Dunlop Australia concerning the future of the plant of Universal Textiles at Derwent Park. For the benefit of the honourable member of Chifley (Mr Armitage), who is trying to interject, I point out that this is a matter about which he and the Labor Party should be concerned because at the present moment the plans are to retrench over 300 employees of Universal Textiles. The meeting was chaired by the Acting Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Macphee) and was attended by senior industry and commerce officials from that Department, namely Messrs Currie and O’Shea.

At that meeting the Dunlop representatives, Mr J. Gough and Mr C. Baird, stated that there was no specific help which their company would seek from the Federal Government to enable Universal Textiles to continue in full production. The company presently intends to close down the weaving and apparel printing sections at Derwent Park with a resultant loss of over 300 jobs. We were astounded to hear from the Dunlop executives the claim that the Derwent Park operation was hopelessly inefficient and unprofitable, and had been for three years. This was in direct contrast to the understanding I had held, and I know the honourable member for Franklin had held, since our election to Federal Parliament in 1975. We had both visited the plant of Universal Textiles at Derwent Park on a number of occasions since October 1975 and had arranged for Federal Ministers, Mr John Howard and Mr Ian Macphee, on separate occasions to visit Universal Textiles for the purpose of inspecting the plant and having discussions with the management. At no time in the past three years have we, as Federal members, been requested to seek any specific Federal assistance other than on the question of freight equalisation.

Despite repeated requests at last night’s meeting, the executives of Dunlop Australia were not prepared to put forward any specific request for

Federal Government assistance to enable the operation to continue at full strength. In view of the alleged loss, which in our view in any event is comparatively small, the honourable member for Franklin and I can only express our surprise and deep regret that despite a three-hour discussion and repeated requests for specific details of possible assistance, Dunlop executives indicated their unwillingness to put forward even a last-ditch appeal. There can now be no doubt in anybody’s mind that the decision to close the major part of the Derwent Park operation is Dunlop ‘s and Dunlop ‘s alone. Despite the attitude of Dunlop the honourable member for Franklin and I do not intend to abandon this matter. We will watch very closely how Dunlop acts over the next few weeks and how it responds to the strong representations we have made in this matter. In our view the matter is far from closed and our future attitude to this company will depend largely upon its conduct from this point of time on.

In passing I might say that after the conference Mr Holden made the comment that he found current claims of unprofitability very hard to believe. Mr Houlihan, who is a moderate trade union leader, said: ‘Given the total disregard that Dunlop has shown for its employees in this matter, it can expect little mercy from the trade union movement in its pursuit of proper, adequate and fair redundancy payments from Dunlop for the people who will be affected by this decision’. Mr Gyselman also expressed surprise to learn that Dunlop still had intentions to expand to the other States and that the machinery from Derwent Park would play a big part in these plans. He said: ‘It was made quite clear by myself that for the time being at least the ban on moving of all machinery will stay’.

The union leaders will report back to their members next Monday afternoon at 3 p.m. but in the meantime I want to put myself on record and my colleague the honourable member for Franklin on record as saying that we cannot, even today, say with certainty that we are now satisfied that we have heard all the facts, and some of the revelations last night leave us with considerable misgivings about the whole matter, and with a very nasty taste in our mouths. The responsibility for that situation, I must say, rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Dunlop Australia, which has hardly covered itself with glory with respect to its performance over the past few weeks.

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

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-In April 1977 President Carter described the need to work out new energy policies as ‘the moral equivalent of war’. It is clear that the Australian Government has absolutely refused to face up to the need to establish a national energy policy. The Government has failed to do this and has put all its energy eggs in the uranium producers’ baskets. There are two basic objections to this. The first is that the apparent availability and the alleged ease of exploitation of uranium is a major disincentive in Australia to the development of solar, tidal, wind and other nonpolluting, non-exhaustible energy sources, leading to almost indefinite deferment of and a low priority for developing alternative energy sources. These would inevitably be much higher if there was no nuclear fuel to exploit. There is a challenge facing many other countries. It is apparently felt that because Australia has ample reserves of uranium, there is no need to develop an energy policy here very seriously.

The second objection is that the apparent availability of abundant nuclear fuel is a major disincentive to developing a national energy policy, recognising the need for energy conservation and implementing, for example, the policies recommended by the American Physical Society in a very important book- a basic book- The Efficient Use of Energy, which was published in 1975, especially the concept of ‘energy analysis’ and what they call’ second law efficiency’.

In The Efficient Use of Energy the American Physical Society proposes a valuable intellectual tool, energy analysis, that has not been used enough in Australia. The theory of ‘energy analysis’ is based on the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which were worked out independently between 1840 and 1850 by Joule, Mayer and Clausius and are still unchallenged. Basically, the American Physical Society proposes that we ought to apply a different test of efficiency, that is relative efficiency according not to the first law of thermodynamics but to the second. ‘First-law efficiency’ is defined, using the Greek letter ‘eta’ to represent energy, as: desired energy transfer achieved by system 71 energy input to the device or system

Second-law efficiency is denned, using the Greek letter ‘ epsilon ‘ to represent energy , as: heat or work usefully transferred maximum possible heat or work transferred

This is not an academic abstraction; it is a principle absolutely basic to the economic use of energy because in all the talk we have heard in this Parliament recently on the subject of energy we have never heard any consideration about the efficient use of energy, lt seems to be taken for granted that energy use will continue to rise at an exponential rate, when it is quite clear, as President Carter and others have pointed out, that if we only put more emphasis on energy conservation, it would be possible to make the energy dollar go much further.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1749

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Television, Eyre Peninsula (Question No. 415)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) In the draft program to extend television services to the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia, where is it intended to establish the high power transmitter.
  2. Where will the additional translator stations be established under the program.
  3. 3 ) What are the projected dates for these television facilities to become operative.
Mr Staley:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2 ), and (3) Details of the total projects for Eyre Peninsula cannot be given in precise terms as these have still to be determined and Government endorsement of the project given. Broadly speaking, however, it is envisaged that the project will include a high-power national station on Mount Cooper to provide a wide coverage service to the rural population in the western section of the Peninsula, subsidiary lowpower national translators to serve Streaky Bay, Smoky BayHaslam, Wudinna and Kimba, a medium-power translator to serve the farming area in the central Eyre Peninsula, including the towns of Cleve and Lock, a translator at Port Augusta and an additional translator at Port Lincoln. In addition, upgrading of the existing national translators at Mount Olinthus and Brothwicks Hill is envisaged to provide improved coverage along the west coast of Spencer Gulf.

Army Ammunition Stocks (Question No. 423)

Mr Neil:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Are the Australian Army stocks of small arms and artillery ammunition above or below a level considered necessary for emergency mobilisation.
  2. How many rounds of (a) small arms and (b) artillery ammunition are allocated per soldier per year for training in (i) the regular forces and (ii) the reserve forces.
Mr Killen:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. 1 ) While information on reserve stocks of ammunition must remain classified, I can state there is no danger to the nation ‘s security from a lack of ammunition.

There have been some recent problems with the production of 7.62 mm small arms ammunition but remedial action has been taken. There have been no problems with the supply of artillery ammunition.

  1. Generally, ammunition is not allocated on an individual basis but rather as a block allocation to formations, units and training establishments. The amount will vary with the role and level of training required at any particular time.

There are many and varied types or natures of ammunition which are allocated according to purpose or role. For example, there are some 20 natures of small arms ammunition many of which do not share commonalty between field force and non-field force units and some 20 natures of artillery ammunition used by field, medium and air defence units, according to role.

As an illustration, use of 7.62 mm rifle ammunition by individuals is based on an average allocation varying from 200 rounds per Army Reserve soldier to 450 rounds per ARA soldier. Within units, the actual allocation to each man usually depends upon the particular role of the soldier in the unit.

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations: Domestic Air Travel (Question No. 444)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

What sum was paid by his Department or by Departments formerly encompassing the functions now performed by his Department, to each airline for air travel within Australia during 1976-77.

Mr Street:
LP

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

Postal and Telecommunications Department: Domestic Air Travel (Question No. 459)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

What sum was paid by his Department, or by Departments formerly encompassing the functions now performed by his Department, to each airline for air travel within Australia during 1976-77.

Mr Staley:
LP

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

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 473)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper and (b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1976-77.
Mr Street:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Question on Notice No. 468, (Hansard, 4 April 1978, page 978).

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 476)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper and (b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and ( ii) other offices of the Department of Education.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1976-77.
Mr Staley:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question: 1 draw the honourable member’s attention to the Prime Minister’s reply to Question No. 468 (Hansard, 4 April 1978, page 978).

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 488)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper and (b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1976-77.
Mr Staley:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to House of Representatives Question on Notice No. 468 (See Hansard, 4 April 1978, page 978).

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 489)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper and (b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of the Attorney-General’s Department.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1976-77.
Mr Viner:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to Question No. 468 (Hansard, 4 April 1 978, page 978).

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 491)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of (a) each daily newspaper and (b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. ) What was the cost of these purchases during 1 976-77.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to House of Representatives Question No. 468 (House of Representatives Hansard, 4 April 1978, page 978).

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 512)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Department.
Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. (a) Full-time staff- Head office, 3; Other offices, nil. (b) Part-time staff- Head office, 1 ; Other offices, 2.
  2. (i) Salaries, $29,95 1; (ii) Other Charges, $ 1 30.

In Canberra my Department is housed in accommodation in Barton Units 1, 2 and S; John Curtin House, Barton; Commerce House, Barton; Southlands House, Mawson; C.M.L. Building, City; Northbourne House, Turner and the M.L.C. Tower, Woden. Of the three full time staff at Head Office, two provide the service at Barton and one at Southlands, Mawson. The one part time attendant is employed at Northbourne House. In other areas alternative facilities are available.

The two part time attendants employed at Regional Offices are in Perth and Adelaide. Other Regional Offices have canteen facilities or tea and coffee making machines available and no expenditure is incurred.

The other changes incurred are for the provision of a tea service for various departmental training courses held during the year.

Where staff are employed in providing a tea service all costs, excluding salaries, are met from officers’ fortnightly contributions.

Cost of Inquiry into matters concerning Mr W. F. Toomer (Question No. 526)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

What was the total cost of the inquiry set up by the Public Service Board which investigated the case of Mr W. F. Toomer, formerly Quarantine Inspector, Department of Health, Western Australia.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

The Public Service Board has advised that direct costs incurred by the Board in relation to the inquiry into Mr Toomer’s case totalled about $11,500. (This figure covers fares, travelling allowances for the inquiry members and their support staff, transcription of evidence, witness expenses, and other miscellaneous costs. ) The persons conducting the inquiry, the staff assisting them (secretary to the inquiry, typists, et cetera), and most witnesses, were officers of the Public Service, whose normal salary arrangements were not varied by reason of their involvement with the inquiry. This involvement varied between a full-time and a part-time commitment during the inquiry (which continued for some five months), and records were not maintained which would enable an accurate costing of salaries to be provided. It may be of assistance, however, to the honourable member to know that the salary costs of the two persons conducting the inquiry and the Secretary attached to the inquiry would have amounted to approximately $25,000 over the period of the inquiry.

Animal Quarantine (Question No. 540)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

How long after the completion of a high security offshore quarantine station would he anticipate that imports of (a) cattle, (b) sheep, (c) goats and (d) pigs would be permitted from (i) Southern Africa, (ii) the Asian mainland, (iii) the Persian Gulf area, (iv) the United States of America, (v) Mexico and South America and ( vi) Eastern Europe.

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

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

The importation of animals through the offshore animal quarantine station from the USA, Canada, Western Europe (including Scandinavia) and Japan will be arranged as soon as practicable after station operations commence. At this stage, it is planned that importations from such countries would be preceded by consignments from the UK and Ireland, relatively safe countries, to allow operation techniques at the station to be tested and adjusted before importations from countries of higher risk are undertaken.

Importation of live animals from this range of countries will significantly broaden Australia’s avenues of access to improved genetic material.

At this stage it is considered probable that importations of animals from such countries as South America, the African continent, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and, possibly, Mexico will be delayed until testing facilities are available at the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory.

Priorities between species and between countries of origin will be determined in the light of recommendations made by an expert advisory committee which it is planned to establish for this purpose. The committee will base its considerations on such factors as industry needs, potential value to

Australia, and the availability of genes through alternative means.

Animal Diseases (Question No. 542)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

What disease of (a) cattle, (b) goats, (c) sheep and (d) pigs can be transmitted through (i) semen and (ii) ova transplants.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The disease transmissibility of semen and ova (embryos) has been demonstrated by specific research for a small number of diseases only. However, disease virus is widespread in body fluids and tissues during certain stages of most viral diseases. In addition, certain bacterial and protozoan diseases involving the genito-urinary tract may result in the presence of disease organisms in semen and ova.

On this basis, it must be assumed that the following viral, bacterial and protozoan diseases could be transmitted through semen or through ova transplants.

Viral diseases including:

Cattle/Sheep/Goats- Foot and Mouth Disease, Rinderpest, Bluetongue, Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis (cattle only), Sheep Pox (sheep only).

Pigs- Foot and Mouth Disease, Swine Fever, African Swine Fever, Aujeszky ‘s Disease.

Bacterial/protozoan diseases including:

Cattle- Brucellosis, Vibriosis, Tuberculosis, Leptospirosis, Trichomoniasis.

Pigs/Sheep/Goats- Brucellosis, Leptospirosis.

Army Transport (Question No. 553)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Were the specifications for the procurement of 6 x 6 trucks for the Australian Army drawn up to meet European manufacturers’ practices and specifications.
  2. If so, did the specifications ignore Australian Design Rules to become effective in 1978.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The specification for the Army 6x6 trucks, against which tenders were invited in 1977, was derived from a stated Australian Army requirement for a truck capable of carrying an 8 tonne payload cross-country and 10 tonnes on formed roads. The payload size resulted from operational studies conducted in Australia.

The specification requires that the vehicles shall be capable of registration in all Australian States and that the vehicles shall comply with the Australian Design Rules (ADR) in force at the time of their acceptance by Army. The specification also anticipated that the dimension and mass limits contained in the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA) report would be implemented by the States by the time production vehicles were to be acquired.

It is recognised by the truck industry that the NAASRA mass limits are amongst the most restrictive in the world and that they disadvantage European, Japanese and North American truck designs which would otherwise be suitable for Australian commercial use. The same restrictions also operate to Army’s disadvantage in that it is the Government’s policy that the Defence Force will comply with statutory requirements except where such compliance results in an unacceptable limitation on operational efficiency.

  1. No Australian Design Rules applicable to motor vehicles in excess of 4.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass will become effective during 1978.

Payments to Schools, Hughes Division (Question No. 602)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 9 March 1978:

What sums were paid by the Schools Commission under each program for government and non-government schools and under the Special Projects (Innovations) Program for government schools in the Electoral Division of Hughes during (a) 1975-76, (b) 1976-77 and (c) the period 1 July 1977 to date.

Mr Staley:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. The information as requested is not readily available on a financial year basis but is available and therefore provided on a calendar year basis. Grants for expenditure on government schools are paid direct to the States who determine priorities for their distribution, except in the case of grants under the Special Projects (Innovations) Program (see (ii)). Payments made to non-government schools in the Electoral Division of Hughes in each of the calendar years 1975, 1976 and 1977 under the programs administered by the Schools Commission are as follows:
  1. There were no government schools in the Electoral Division of Hughes which received payment of grants under the Special Projects (Innovations) Program in each of the calendar years 1975, 1976 and 1977.

Subsidies to Hospital Funds (Question No. 619)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice.on 9 March 1978:

What was or will be the level of subsidy for each registered hospital fund under the Subsidised Hospital Table as at (a) 30 June 1977 and (b) 31 May 1978, based on contribution rates approved at the time of answering this question.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

The subsidies payable in pursuance of section 82aa ofthe National Health Act 1953 in respect of persons who take out hospital-only ‘ insurance are as follows:

Narcotics (Question No. 634)

Mr Hodges:

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many narcotics bureaux has Australia overseas.
  2. Where are they situated.
  3. 3 ) How many staff are there in each bureau.
  4. What are their qualifications and experience.
  5. Which countries operate narcotics bureaux in Australia.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Australia maintains two narcotics offices overseas.
  2. They are located in Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur.
  3. ) There is one officer at each post.
  4. Both officers have extensive experience in drug law enforcement and investigate duties.
  5. No foreign country maintains a narcotics bureau within Australia.

Immigration: Refugees (Question No. 641)

Mr Howe:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 14 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the present criteria by which Australia selects refugees.
  2. How do these criteria correlate with those of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
  3. What criteria are used to determine whether potential migrants, who are not dependent members of migrant families already resident in Australia or who are not refugees, are eligible to come to live and work in Australia.
  4. What occupational skills are required at present.
  5. 5 ) How many job vacancies exist in these skills.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. and (2) 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 a wellfounded 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’.

Australia, as a party to this Convention, fully recognises its humanitarian commitment and responsibility to play its part in the resettlement of refugees. The Government recognises, however, that there are people in refugee-type situations who do not fall strictly within this Convention definition. Government policy is sufficiently flexible to enable the extension of this policy to such situations if it is decided that this is appropriate.

Two bodies have been established to advise the Minister on refugee matters. The Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Refugees advises on the designation by Australia of refugee situations and Australia’s response to them. The

Determination of Refugee Status Committee evaluates applications by persons in Australia for refugee status in accordance with the definition in the Convention and makes recommendations to me. (3), (4) and (5) Non-dependent parents of working age may be approved for migrant entry to Australia if they are assessed as economically viable, of good health and character and meet selection standards. There is provision for patrials, persons with a close association with Australia, fiance(e)s and British Commonwealth citizens resident in New Zealand to come to Australia as migrants without having to meet occupational criteria.

For other applicants, a list of occupations for migration drawn up by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations is used to establish eligibility for entry on the basis of qualifications or experience recognised in Australia. The list covers a number of skilled trades and professions with the level of demand indicated for each State and Territory, and according to metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in some instances.

The honourable member may refer to this list, a copy of which is forwarded to him quarterly.

Vegetable Oils: Margarine (Question No. 651)

Mr Lloyd:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) When will the draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the inquiry into vegetable oils be published.
  2. Will fresh evidence concerning the ability of margarine manufacturers to reduce prices dramatically be admissable because of the significant bearing it must have on the final report.
Mr Fife:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Industries Assistance Commission advises that its draft report on this inquiry will be available about the middle of this year.
  2. Yes.

Replacement for Mirage Aircraft (Question No. 657)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has a short list of aircraft to replace the Mirage been recommended to the Government by the Defence Department.
  2. If so, has the Government accepted this recommendation as a basis for future consideration of the choice of a replacement aircraft.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

  1. and (2) No. I refer the honourable member to my statement to the House on 7 April 1978 (Hansard pages 1223-5).

Immigration: Approved Occupations (Question No. 666)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. How many occupational categories were on the list of approved occupations for migration in (a) March 1975, (b) March 1976 and (c) March 1977.
  2. What major groups have been added to the list since December 1975.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. (a)47,(b)78,(c)125.
  2. It is difficult to give a precise answer to this question. Some occupations have been added, deleted or varied over the period concerned. There have been variations according to regions.

The honourable member has received lists of approved occupations since March 1 976. 1 have arranged for copies of the lists for March and October 1975 to be sent to him. The changes in listings can be determined from those lists.

Technetium-99 (Question No. 690)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have some New South Wales hospitals rejected on quality grounds use of the Australian produced nuclear byproduct, technetium-99 used to explore the spread of cancer in brain tumour patients.
  2. If so, are these rejections justified and what are the details.
  3. Have the hospitals concerned encountered any obstruction from the N.S.W. Health Commission or any other authority in their attempts to import a satisfactory substitute.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

I assume the question relates essentially to technetium99m pertechnatate, which is the form in which the isotope is most commonly used for imaging.

1 ) No, there has been no problem associated with technetium99m pertechnatate used to explore the spread of cancer in brain tumour patients.

The Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) supplies technetium-99m pertechnatate in the ready-to-use form as well as in the form of devices called generators, from which it can be obtained by users.

Problems have been experienced only with the readytouse technetium-99 pertechnatate extracted from the parent material by one particular process and then only when used for bone imaging in combination with another material. This problem is presently being studied by a working party of nuclear medicine specialists from Sydney hospitals and the AAEC.

This product, like all AAEC radiopharmaceuticals, is subject to strict quality control procedures.

1 have no knowledge of any action that may have been taken by the N.S.W. Health Commission of the importation of a substitute product. However I understand that the AAEC has encouraged rather than obstructed N.S.W. hospitals attempting to import a satisfactory substitute until the present technical difficulties are overcome.

Appeals to Privy Council (Question No. 695)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 16 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What progress has been made by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General on the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council.
  2. ls the Committee considering the implications and relevance of the power in placitum 51 (xxxviii) of the Constitution; if so, what action has been taken.
  3. What efforts has the Attorney-General made to persuade the States to take this action since January 1977.
  4. Have any States intimated to the Attorney-General a determination to preserve Privy Council appeals.
  5. Does this matter have any greater urgency in view of the widely criticised decision of the Privy Council in Oteri v. R.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: ( 1 )-(5) The topics referred to are under discussion in the Standing Committee. However it would be contrary to the practice ofthe Standing Committee to refer to the details of current discussions in answer to a parliamentary question.

Department of Construction: Operation of Tribunals (Question No. 724)

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

wn asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Was his Department requested by the Administrative Review Council to provide information ofthe type-described in Appendix III of the First Annual Report of the Administrative Review Council relating to the operation of tribunals created under legislation administered by his Department and tribunals administered or serviced by his Department during 1976-77; if so, did his Department respond to that request.
  2. Will he now provide the information referred to in part (1).
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable members ‘s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The Department of Construction was asked by the Administrative Review Council to provide information relating to the operation of tribunals created under legislation administered by the Department and tribunals administered or serviced by the Department.

The Department of Construction responded to the request on 25 February 1977.

  1. As indicated at ( 1 ), the Department provided information to the Administrative Review Council but the Council did not include the information at Appendix III of the First Annual Report as the matters mentioned in the reply were not appropriate for inclusion.

Citizenship (Question No. 772)

Mr E G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

am asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many (a) men and (b) women were granted Australian citizenship in 1977.
  2. How many (a) men and (b) women were refused citizenship in 1977 because of their insufficient knowledge of English.
Mr MacKellar:
LP

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

  1. 1) (a) 37,406 males and (b) 33,300 females.
  2. Separate statistics of males and females are unavailable, however 596 applications for Australian citizenship were refused because of the applicant’s insufficient knowledge of English.

Woodchip Industry, Western Australia (Question No. 774)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) On what date was the committee established to research the effects of woodchipping in Western Australia.
  2. Which Federal and State departments and authorities are represented on it.
  3. What are its terms of reference.
  4. On what dates has it met.
  5. 5 ) On what dates and aspects has it made reports.
  6. Has such a committee been established in any other State; if so, will he give corresponding information about it.
Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. 1 ) The Steering Committee on research into the effects of the wood chip industry was formed on 20 August 1973.
  2. The Western Australian Public Works Department, the Western Austraiian Metropolitan Water Supply Sewerage and Drainage Board, the Western Austraiian Forests Department, Western Australian Department of Agriculture, the Western Australian Department of Industrial Development, the Western Australian Department of Mines and the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Environment are represented on the Committee as well as CSIRO and the University of Western Australia.
  3. The Committee’s terms of reference are:

To report on what measurements and predictive modelling would be required to determine sensitive areas, where problems might arise, and to determine what on-going monitoring would be needed to provide the conservator of forests with technical data on which to base his management and control of operations.

  1. The Committee has met on the following dates: 15 January, 6 March, 5 July, 20 November 1974. 30 May, 31 October 1975. 27 February, 16 July, 10 December 1976. 31 March, 12 May, 10 November 1977. 16 March 1978.
  2. The Report of the Steering Committee on research into the effects of woodchipping in the Manjimup area ( Kelsall Committee Review 1 976 ) was issued by the Department of Conservation and Environment, Western Australia, in November 1976.
  3. I am not aware ofthe existence of such a Committee in any other State.

Oilseed and Soybean Industries (Question No. 827)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 5 April, 1 978:

What steps has the Government taken and when were they taken to foster oil seed processing and the soya bean industry in central Queensland.

Mr Sinclair:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

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

Steps taken by the Commonwealth Government to foster the oilseeds industry have mainly been in the fields of extension and research. While the extension and research projects being conducted may not be specifically related to oil seed processing and the soybean industry in central Queensland, the results should benefit the oilseed industry throughout Australia including that of central Queensland.

The Commonwealth contributes to the funding of extension projects in Queensland under the Australian Extension Services Grant programme. These projects encompass a number of crops in that State including soybeans.

There is a significant amount of research on oilseeds at present being carried out by the CSIRO some of which is specifically directed to soybeans.

Legislation has recently been enacted to establish a joint Commonwealth/Industry oilseeds research scheme on a national basis. It is the policy of the Government to foster schemes of this nature to undertake research into the problems that exist in our rural industries. The scheme will be financed by a levy on producers of a number of oilseeds including soybean which will be matched on a dollar for dollar basis by the Commonwealth.

An Oilseeds Research Committee has been established under the legislation to consider research proposals and formulate recommendations on a programme of research. The programme will be additional to research already being carried out. Oilseed growers from each of the producing States are represented on the Committee including Queensland. Under the scheme research can be carried out in connection with oilseeds and oilseed products and is defined broadly to include scientific technical or economic research.

All sections of the industry, including that concerned with oilseed processing, can therefore benefit from the scheme.

Immigration: Refugees (Question No. 846)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government agree with the statement in the Green Paper on Immigration Policies and Australia’s Population that approximately 9 per cent of all immigrants between 1 945 and 1 976 were refugees or people from refugeetype situations.
  2. What was the proportion of the latter in (a) 1975-76 and(b) 1976-77.

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

  1. Between 1947 and 1976, about 3.3 million settlers arrived in Australia, of whom some 300,000, or approximately 9 per cent were classified as refugees.
  2. Persons classified as refugees in visas and arriving in Australia in 1 975-76 amounted to 8.3 per cent of the intake. In 1976-77 they amounted to 1 1.5 per cent to the intake.

These figures do not include large numbers of displaced persons from the Lebanon.

Animal Quarantine (Question No. 882)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister of Health, upon notice, on 7 April 1 978.

What is he doing to overcome the criticism of his Department that it lacks an adequate number of veterinary officers to administer completely animal quarantine and the increased responsibility for animal imports because of the Cocos Island quarantine station.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

In recent months three experienced Veterinary Officers have been appointed to the Animal Quarantine Branch and an offer of appointment has been made to a fourth. One these officers has been appointed Assistant Director-General (Animal Quarantine) following the retirement of the previous incumbent.

Additional veterinary staff will be sought at the appropriate time to meet the work loads expected with the development of the offshore quarantine station.

Australian Capital Territory: Receiving of Stolen Property (Question No 887)

Mr Hodgman:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 7 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Are statistics kept in the Australian Capital Territory as to the increased incidence of the crime of receiving stolen property.
  2. Is it a fact that if there were fewer receivers of stolen property there would be fewer thieves.
  3. Do former police officers as a result of their professional association with criminal elements receive confidential information which, if abused, would enable them to make contact easily with thieves for the purpose of actually receiving stolen property.
  4. Are any specific statistics kept in the Australian Capital Territory on the number of occasions the crime of receiving stolen property has been committed by a former police officer either of the Commonwealth or of a State Police Force.
  5. Has he personal knowledge of any recent case in the Australian Capital Territory where a former police officer has received stolen property and by implication openly admitted commission of the crime of receiving the stolen property by publicly referring to or actually openly producing in full public view the stolen property.
  6. Is the crime of receiving stolen property punishable in the A.C.T. upon indictment.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am informed that statistics are kept by the Australian Capital Territory Police Force relative to the increased incidence of the crime of receiving stolen property.
  2. It has long been presumed that if there were less receivers of stolen property there would be less thieves.
  3. Members of the Police Forces due to their professional association with criminal elements and their access to records relative to criminal elements do gain knowledge which if abused either as a serving or ex-member of a Police

Force would enable them to contact thieves for the purpose of receiving stolen property.

  1. No statistics are kept relative to the involvement of expolice in the crime of receiving stolen property. Identification of offenders as ex-police would be in many instances most difficult.
  2. 1 have no such knowledge relating to an ex-member of the A.C.T. Police Force.
  3. The crime of receiving stolen property in punishable in the Australian Capital Territory upon indictment.

Migrant Emergency Fund (Question No. 888)

Dr Cass:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 7 April 1 978:

  1. Has there been any increased use of the Migrant Emergency Fund in response to the current economic situation.
  2. Is the maximum amount of any single loan to a migrant in an emergency situation still pegged at $ 10.
  3. 3 ) What are the criteria used in allocating these loans.
  4. What were the total amounts lent during each of the years 1975-76 and 1977-78.
  5. As the amounts involved seem to be so small, is the program effective.
  6. Are there any moves to increase the funds available for this purpose.
Mr Mackellar:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Use of the fund has fluctuated and it is difficult to identify any trend. The amounts lent over the past two years, and for the first 9 months of the current financial year are shown in (4).
  2. Yes. The total permitted indebtedness of an individual is $25 if more than one advance is made.
  3. Loans are made only to migrants within the first two years after their arrival in emergency situations where no other alternative forms of relief are available.
  4. 1975-76, $532; 1976-77, $319; 1977-78, $615.
  5. The fund is not a program as the honourable member suggests. Authorised social workers are permitted to keep a small float to provide loans to migrants in emergency situations where no other assistance is immediately available. The Department of Social Security has the chief Commonwealth responsibility for the payment of cash benefits. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs does not see itself as a provider of cash relief and does not intend to take up such a role. Departmental social workers are encouraged to assist their migrant clients to use general community services and have developed expertise in doing this. My Department considers the fund effective to the extent that it is relevant in the total service context.
  6. The fund is currently being reviewed.

Women’s Refuges (Question No. 898)

Mr Cohen:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 10 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many women’s refuges are currently operating in each State with Australian Government assistance.
  2. What is the current projection of Commonwealth expenditure in 1977-78 for refuges in Victoria and South Australia.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Currently, there are 62 women’s refuges approved for Commonwealth financial assistance. These are located as follows:

The figures in brackets represent the numbers of women’s refuges approved under the Community Health Program. The remainder are funded under the Homeless Persons Assistance Program ( 1 ) and the Capital Territory Health Commission appropriation (2 ).

  1. In Victoria and South Australia, the current projections of Commonwealth expenditures in 1977-78 for women’s refuges are approximately $247,700 for Victoria and $232,700 for South Australia. The Victorian total includes $6,000 estimated expenditure under the Homeless Persons Assistance Program for the Mordialloc Women’s Refuge. The balance of estimated expenditure in Victoria and the total expenditure in South Australia are to be incurred under the Community Health Program.

Orthodontics (Question No. 899)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice on 10 April 1978:

What is the estimated cost to State and Commonwealth governments of the proposed changes in the method of paying for the orthodontic post-operative treatment of hare Ups and cleft palates.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

As I have stated previously in the House, I have created a Working Party within my Department to advise on a workable scheme for providing assistance towards the cost of orthodontic treatment for cleft lip and palate conditions. The Working Party feels that the matter can best be resolved by an extension of the Medical Benefits Schedule together with the operation of specialised clinics in some state hospitals.

I have written to the State Health Ministers seeking their co-operation in respect of the setting up, as appropriate, of the clinics. Pending discussions with the States it would not be possible to provide the honourable member with an estimate of the cost of operating the clinics. The cost will, of course be shared between the Commonwealth and the States under the normal cost-sharing arrangements.

As regards to extension of the Medical Benefits Schedule to cover orthodontic treatment it is estimated to cost, on current projections, approximately $2.6m per annum.

Uranium (Question No. 64)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. With reference to Budget Paper No. 1, page 98, is the Bureau of Mineral Resources at present gathering and disseminating geological and geophysical information relevant to uranium exploration; if so, where.
  2. Has the Bureau disseminated this type of information in the past; if so, which companies have taken uranium mining leases on sites first discovered and surveyed by the Bureau.
  3. To which states is it intended that the Bureau progressively restrict its activities.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Bureau of Mineral Resources collects and compiles geological and geophysical information on Australia in order to establish the geological framework of areas, improve knowledge, and assist in the further exploration of those areas, lt disseminates this information through geological and geophysical maps, open file records, published reports, bulletins, and explanatory notes, conference papers and scientific journals. Some of this information is directly or indirectly relevant to uranium exploration. Current geological and geophysical investigation of the Pine Creek Geosyncline and the McArthur Basin in the Northern Territory and the Westmoreland/Mount Isa and Georgetown areas in Queensland are providing information and ideas which are basic to the search for ore deposits including uranium.
  2. Yes. Some emphasis was placed on areas thought to have uranium potential in the Northern Territory in the early 1 950 ‘s and again in the late 1 960 ‘s as the search for uranium was accorded a high priority at those times. Only one company, Mary Kathleen Ltd, is mining uranium in Australia at present. The deposit being worked by this company was discovered by a private prospector. Work done by the BMR has contributed in varying degrees towards the discovery of a number of uranium prospects in the same way as it has done towards the discovery of other mineral prospects. Dysons and Mt Fitch in the Rum Jungle area, Coronation Hill, Saddle Ridge and El Sharana West in the South Alligator River area, and Westmoreland in Queensland were discovered by the BMR in the course of field work, and were subsequently followed up by private enterprise to establish their economic value. Nabarlek and Ranger in the Northern Territory were discovered by private enterprise as a result of recommendations by the BMR that the area was highly prospective. Information provided by the BMR made a significant contribution to the discovery of Rum Jungle in the Northern Territory, Yeelirrie in Western Australia, and Roxby Downs in South Australia by private enterprise.
  3. It is intended that the Bureau of Mineral Resources will progressively restrict its activities in the States to those which could not reasonably be undertaken by State Government agencies.

Aborigines, Queensland (Question No. 136)

Mr £ G Whitlam:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

am asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) When did he become aware that the review of International Labour Organisation Convention No. 65- Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1939, which the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations instituted in April 1977 in accordance with established Federal-State arrangements for the periodic examination of compliance with ILO. Conventions not yet ratified by Australia, had revealed that provisions of the Queensland Apprenticeship Act 1964-73 were inconsistent with Convention (Hansard, 4 October 1977, page 1607).
  2. Has his Department considered whether this Queensland Act is inconsistent with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975; if so, with what result.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. The matter was not brought to my attention, since there are no references in the Queensland Apprenticeships Act 1 964-73 to Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders.
  2. Yes. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975 provides, inter alia, that an Aboriginal or Islander on a reserve is not required to comply with any direction to perform work on the reserve unless the direction is given in relation to the performance of reasonable community obligations or unless the work is in relation to an obligation that the Aboriginal would be obliged to perform if the direction were given outside the reserve. It appears, therefore, that provisions of the Queensland Apprenticeships Act relating to penalties for apprentices who fail to attend, or misbehave while attending prescribed classes are not inconsistent with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act.

Aborigines: Training as School Dental Therapists (Question No. 188)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

Will he negotiate with the Minister for Health to have admitted a minimum quota of Aboriginals to training as school dental therapists at no cost to the States and to meet all costs of school dental therapy to schools where most children are Aboriginals.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

At present, there are ten dental therapy schools operating in Australia. Eligibility for admission is normally the satisfactory completion of secondary education. Currently, two Aboriginals are undertaking dental therapy training. Aboriginals who gain entrance to dental therapy courses are eligible for financial assistance under the NEAT and Aboriginal Study Grants schemes.

I am informed that few Aboriginals have applied for admission to dental therapy schools. I will, however, raise with my colleague, the Minister for Health, the possibility of having a minimum quota of Aboriginals admitted to training as school dental therapists at no cost to the State.

The Australian School Dental Scheme which is being developed co-operatively between the Commonwealth and State Governments aims to offer free dental care to all school children- including Aboriginal Australians- up to their fifteenth birthday. As the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, responded to your question, No. 189, on 16 March 1978:

Coverage of the Scheme is progressively expanding and eligible Aboriginal children are currently receiving the same benefits as other school children. ‘

I regard it as appropriate that this Scheme should continue to include Aboriginal children.

Aboriginal Housing, Port Pirie (Question No. 224)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have any houses funded by his Department been provided for Aboriginal persons residing in the Port Pirie area of South Australia.
  2. Is it intended that any of these houses will be provided in the future.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, one house has been provided as at 30 June 1 977.
  2. Two houses will be provided in this financial year.

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 481)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of ( a) each daily newspaper and ( b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1976-77.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

I refer the honourable member to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 468, Hansard, 4 April 1978, page 978.

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. SIO)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Department.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) (i) 2, (b) (i) Nil, (a) (ii) Nil, (b) (ii) 2.
  2. (i) $23,288.01, (ii) $677.78.

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 523)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) head office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Department.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am informed by my Department that there are no staff in the head office or in other offices of the Department employed on tea-making and distribution.
  2. I am informed by my Department that nothing was expended in (i) of (ii).

Aborigines, Grey Division (Question No. 612)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the total Aboriginal population in the redistributed Electoral Division of Grey.
  2. What are the Aboriginal populations in the various towns and reserves.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The total Aboriginal population of the redistributed Electoral Division of Grey is not known as this information is not yet available from the Bureau of Statistics following the 1976 National Census. The 1971 National Census shows a total Aboriginal population figure for Grey of 3,415. The estimated Aboriginal population of the redistributed Division is 4,650.
  2. The Aboriginal populations of various towns and reserves cannot be stated until the 1976 National Census figures have been released. Estimated Aboriginal popu lations are:

Operation of Administrative Tribunals (Question No. 721)

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

wn asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. Was his Department requested by the Administrative Review Council to provide information ofthe type described in Appendix III of the First Annual Report of the Administrative Review Council relating to the operation of tribunals created under legislation administered by his Department and tribunals administered or serviced by his Department during 1976-77; if so, did his Department respond to that request.
  2. Will he now provide the information referred to in pan (1)
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. (a) Yes. (b) Yes.
  2. The Administrative Review Council was advised that there are no administrative tribunals operating within the Department or under legislation administered by me.

Lead Content of Motor Spirit (Question No. 738)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is he able to say in which countries are maximum permissible levels of lead in motor spirit fixed by legislation.
  2. Is he also able to say in each case what levels have been set for 1 978, and for future years.
Mr Newman:
LP

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

Coal Research (Question No. 739)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

Have any agreements been entered into under the provisions of the Coal Research Assistance Act 1977 for carrying out research with funds provided from the Coal Research Trust Account; if so, who has received grants, for what purposes and in what amounts.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

Archives (Question No. 778)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978:

What progress has been made with the archives legislation. (Hansard. 24 February 1 977, page 507 ).

Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

Drafting of archives legislation has been completed. Depending upon the requirements of the legislative program, it is hoped that the Bill will be introduced into Parliament in the near future.

Production of Motor Fuel from Coal (Question No. 826)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for National Development upon notice, on 6 April 1978:

What steps has the Government taken and when were they taken to develop experimental coal processing in Queensland rnining areas with a view to commerical production of motor fuel from coal when this becomes economically feasible.

Mr Newman:
LP

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

The government recognises the significance of coal as major energy source in Australia and is encouraging activities directed towards securing greater reliance on this fuel for meeting national energy requirements. Conversion of coal to synthetic fuels is an important aspect of attaining this goal. As well as supporting Australian research in this particular area, the government has been able to gain access to developments elsewhere through co-operative research and information exchange agreements with other countries. These initiatives represent the first stage of government involvement in the task of ultimately establishing an industry for the production of motor fuels from coal and are relevant to Queensland and to other coal-producing States. Negotiations are currently proceeding whereby the Commonwealth, together with three State governments, including Queensland, will conduct a joint coal-to-oil feasibility study with the Federal Republic of Germany.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Question 834)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his Department completed its consideration ofthe role of the Land Fund Commission referred to in the Minister’s media release of 20 March 1978.
  2. ) Will this consideration result in review by the Government further to its review of the Hay Report in 1 976.
  3. In view of urgent pressures from other Departments for conclusion of agreements between Aboriginal and mining interests, when does he expect to make public details of Government policy on Aboriginal land rights.
  4. What delays in arriving as such a policy have resulted from representations of (a) the Queensland Government, (b) the Western Australian Government and (c) other governments.
Mr Viner:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Government’s policy on Aboriginal land rights has been clearly stated, particularly in my second reading speech on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and my statement of 23 August on the Government’s uranium decisions.
  4. None.

Shipping: Quarantine (Question No. 10)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has he requested a full report on the clearance of the M.V. Vishna Kalyan in Sydney and subsequent fumigation of the vessel in Melbourne.
  2. ’ Was the master informed during the Sydney inspection that the inspection was part of an inquiry to get rid of a troublesome quarantine officer.
  3. Did the master make a statement to this effect in Melbourne before an officer of the Health Department quarantine service.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 have received a full account of events relating to the M.V. Vishna Kalyan.
  2. All members of the party which undertook the special tour of inspection of the vessel on IS June 1977 have denied making such a statement or having heard it made by others.
  3. The Master of the vessel was heard to make such a statement by officers of my Department in Melbourne.

Shipping: Quarantine (Question No. 11)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) It is normal procedure for letters of clearance to be given to ships’ masters in respect of quarantine inspections by State Directors ofthe Department of Health.
  2. Has he ascertained the reason for the issue of a letter of clearance to a ship’s master by the New South Wales Director of Health, Dr Bull.
  3. Has he established whether Dr Bull carried out a full inspection on the vessel prior to issue of the letter.
  4. Has he any knowledge of a letter being issued on any previous occasion.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No.
  2. The letter was written by Dr Bull on 17 June 1977 at the request of the Master of the vessel. It is understood that the voyage had been his first overseas command following 18 years of administration and he felt disquiet at the implications raised by a special inspection of his vessel by a party which included non-quarantine personnel. His ship had been fumigated before he left India and he was concerned that the inspection could imply to the owners that there was an inadequate standard of cleanliness throughout his ship.
  3. On 15 June 1977 Dr Bull, Director of Health, New South Wales, accompanied Mr R. Perriman, Mr G. Temme and Mr G. Cameron (the members and the secretary of an inquiry established by the Public Service Board to look into matters relating to Mr Toomer) on an examination of the officers’ and crew galleys, food stores, two crew cabins and an officer’s cabin. The purpose of the visit was to familiarise the members ofthe inquiry with the nature of quarantine inspections. A full inspection ofthe vessel was carried out separately by the Quarantine Inspector and other Quarantine personnel (with the exception of holds completely full of cargo).
  4. I am advised that Masters of vessels do occasionally request Bills of Health or Certificates of Cleanliness for various reasons.

Advertising (Question No. 32)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) What sum was spent by the Department of Education on advertising and services during the period (a) 11 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976, (c) 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977 and (d) 1 July 1977 to date.
  2. What was the cost of each campaign undertaken.
  3. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated.
  4. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign.
  5. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign.
  6. 6 ) How was each agency or consultant selected.
  7. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78.
Mr Staley:
LP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. to (7) Advertising by the Department of Education and Statutory Authorities is undertaken for the most part to draw the attention of interested institutions and persons to grants, benefits, scholarships and other forms of assistance under the programs for which it is responsible. Some advertising is also used for employment vacancies. In the ACT and Northern Territory advertising is also used to inform prospective students of courses at Technical and Further Education Institutions and to indicate the availability of courses to migrants. The use of advertising in the case of grants and similar programs is closely related to an annual timetable of processing of applications related to the academic or school year. These processes are an integral part of program administration and cannot properly be described as campaigns.

Advertising by the Department is placed through the Australian Government Advertising Service.

Information on expenditure for some of the specific periods listed is not readily available. Expenditure on advertising by the Department for the financial years 1975-76, 1976-77 and the estimate for the year 1977-78 is shown below:

Activities under Agreements for Scientific and Technical Co-operation (Question No. 162)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

What activities were undertaken in Australia and other countries in 1977 under agreements for scientific and technical co-operation between Australia and those countries? (Hansard, 19 April 1977, page 1002).

Mr Adermann:
NCP/NP

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

The following activities took place under Agreements for scientific and technical co-operation during 1977:

US/Australia Agreement for Scientific and Technical Co-operation (signed 16 October 1968; renewed 30 July 1973).

Thirty individual scientists from the USA visited Australia for the purpose of engaging in research work and to exchange scientific information. The details are:

Professor T. L. Vincent of the University of Arizona visited Dr B. S.Goh of the University of Western Australia for research concerning management of biological systems, from August 1976 to June 1977. During this time he also visited the University of Queensland, the Australian National University and Griffith University.

Associate Professor C. P. P. Reid of Colorado State University visited Dr G. D. Bowen of the CSIRO Division of Soils to study the role of mycorrhiza in relation to the growth of pine trees, from 1 September 1976 to 10 June 1977.

Professor V. H. Dropkin of the University of Missouri visited Dr A. F. Bird of the Division of Horticultural Research, CSIRO to analyse the stimulus of egg sac secretion by Meioidogyne females (root-knot nematodes), from early September 1976 to July 1977. He also visited Department of Agriculture laboratories in several States during this time.

Professor Sidney R. Ash of Weber State College, Utah visited Dr R. Gould of the University of New England to study the evolution of the Bennettitales in the Triassic of Eastern Australia, from 6 September 1976 to 1 1 August 1977. During this time Professor Ash visited other locations in Australia collecting fossil specimens.

Professor G. M. Frye of Case Western Reserve University visited Professor V. D. Hopper of the University of Melbourne to collaborate in high energy astrophysics, from December 1976 to July 1977.

Professor A. H. Brush of the University of Connecticut visited Dr R. D. B. Fraser, Mr T. P. MacRae and Dr P. R. Tulloch of the Division of Protein Chemistry, CSIRO to study the structural variability and protein heterogeneity of feathers, from December 1976 to August 1977.

Dr J. G. Tew of the Virginia Commonwealth University visited Professor Sir Gustav Nossal and Dr T. E. Mandel of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research to study the role of cell-associated persisting antigen in the regulation and maintenance of the immune response, for twelve months commencing December 1976.

Professor B. J. Biddle of the University of Missouri visited Dr D. S. Anderson of the Australian National University for studies of social responses of adolescents outside standard school systems, from January to December 1977.

Professor T. Hymowitz of the University of Illinois visited Dr L. T. Evans and Mr P. Broue of the CSIRO Division of Plant Industry to collect seeds and plant specimens of the genus Glycine. He also visited the Waite Agriculture Research Institute, the State Herbarium of South

Australia, Canberra Botanic Gardens, the CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, the State Herbariums of Queensland and New South Wales and the Agricultural Research Station at Grafton, NSW and also undertook collecting trips accompanied by Mr Broue. His overall visit was from 10 January to 2 1 February 1977.

Professor K. W. Kemper of the Florida State University visited Dr T. P. Ophel of the Australian National University (ANU) to conduct research in nuclear reactions on the ANU Pelletron Accelerator, from 15 January 1977 to I August 1977.

Associate Professor Myong-ku Ahn of Indiana State University visited Dr R. Mills of the Australian National University to study diffusion in liquids, from January to 1 1 August 1977.

Dr J. L. Lancaster of the University of Arkansas visited Dr H. Wharton and other officers of the CSIRO Division of Entomology to collaborate on research concerned with ticks and dung beetles, from late January to late February 1977.

Professor J. A. Blake of the University of the Pacific, California visited Dr J. D. Kudenov of the Marine Pollution Studies Group of the Ministry of Conservation, Victoria to study the larval development and systematics of Spionidae (Polychaeta), from 30 January to 17 July 1977.

Associate Professor W. C. Barna of the American University, Washington D.C. visited Dr R. E. Wass of the University of Sydney to undertake a comparative study of frontal walls in representative Cheilostome Bryozans, from 6 February 1977 to January 1978.

Professor H. W. Schemer of Yale University visited Professor B. Rigsby of the University of Queensland to study Australian Aboriginal kinship and social organisation. He also undertook related studies in Western Australia, Canberra and Central Northern Australia and North Queensland. His visit was from late February to June 1977.

Dr R. H. Petersen of the University of Tennessee visited Dr P. H. B. Talbot of the Waite Agricultural Research Institute to undertake taxonomic studies of Clavarioid fungi of Southern Australia. Dr Petersen visited various other institutions as pan of this work. His visit to Australia was from 6 to 10 June 1977.

Professor P. Somasundaran of Columbia University, New York visited Mr John S. Carr and Professor Thomas W. Healey of the University of Melbourne to work on research programs involving mineral processing, particularly selective flocculation and flotation separation of minerals, for nine weeks in May to July 1977. During this time he travelled widely visiting other institutions and companies involved in mineral processing research.

Professor P. B. Tomlinson of Harvard University visited Dr John S. Bunt of the Australian Institute of Marine Science to undertake studies on the systematics and reproductive biology of mangrove plants, for six weeks in the period JuneJuly 1977.

Professor E. G. Batte ofthe Northern Carolina State University visited Dr J. D. Kelly of the University of Sydney, Dr J. H. Arundel of the University of Melbourne and Dr C. Dobson of the University of Queensland to study certain parasites in pigs, from June to August 1977.

Professor E. Teicholz of Harvard University visited Dr R. Sharpe of the CSIRO Division of Building Research, Melbourne to modify a computer planning model developed by the Division called TOPAZ (Technique for the Optimum Placement of Activities in Zones) which is used to model urban development processes. His visit to Australia was from 25 August to 3 September 1977. During this time, he also visited the CSIRO Division of Land Use Research in Canberra.

Dr John W. Bixler of the State University College at Brockport, New York is visiting Dr Alan M. Bond ofthe University of Melbourne to study fluoride complexes in nonaqueous media, commencing early September 1977 to mid July 1978.

Associate Professor William H. Fuchsman of the Oberlin College, Ohio is visiting Dr C. A. Appleby ofthe CSIRO Division of Plant Industry to study the function of leghemoglobin heterogeneity in symbiotic nitrogen fixation in legumes, commencing 1 5 September 1 977 for nine months.

Dr Warren P. Stoutamire of the University of Akron visited Mr A. S. George of the Western Australian Herbarium to study the co-evolution of orchids and wasps in Australia, commencing September 1 977 for four months.

Associate Professor G. Shorack of the University of Washington, Seattle is visiting Dr C. C. Heyde ofthe CSIRO Division of Mathematics and Statistics, Canberra and Dr D. J. Daley ofthe Australian National University to study problems related to the empirical process, commencing September 1977 for eleven months.

Professor Joseph Keren of the Northwestern University, Illinois is visiting Professor G. I. Opat of the University of Melbourne to work on bubble chamber analysis of antiprotonproton interactions, commencing September 1977 for twelve months.

Dr S. Awramik of the University of California visited Dr Malcolm Walter of the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, Miss K. Grey of the Geological Survey of Western Australia and geologists of BHP working in the Nabberu Basin of Central Western Australia in a comparative study of the Paleobiology of Precambrian iron formations. His visit to Australia was for three weeks in September 1977. During this time he also spent one week in the vicinity of the Hamersley Ranges of Western Australia.

Professor A. Fry of the University of Arkansas visited Dr R. F. C. Brown of Monash University to undertake heavy atom isotope effect studies of organic reaction mechanisms, from 7 October 1977 to 5 January 1978. During this time he visited other institutions.

Associate Professor James T. Staley of the University of Washington, Seattle is visiting Professor K. C. Marshall ofthe University of New South Wales and Professor V.B.D. Skerman of the University of Queensland to study the biology of aquatic bacteria, commencing October 1 977 for eight months.

Dr T. F. O’Malley (unaffiliated) is visiting Dr R. W. Crompton of the Australian National University to study anomalous pressure dependence and derivation of electronatom cross sections from transport co-efficients, commencing October 1977 for twelve months.

Dr D. M. Devaney of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu is visiting Dr B. R. Wilson and Mrs L. M. Marsh of the Western Australian Museum to undertake a systematic and environmental study of Indian Ocean ophiuroidea based on collections from the International Indian Ocean Expedition and from Western Australia, commencing November 1 977 for ten months.

Fifteen scientists from Australia visited scientists in the U.S.A. and one scientist joined a U.S. Antarctic expedition for the purpose of engaging in research work and to exchange scientific information. Details are as follows:

Professor R. W. Robinson of the University of Newcastle visited Professor F. Harary of the University of Michigan to conduct research on aspects of graphical enumeration in the physical sciences during December 1976 and January 1977.

Dr A. M. Sargeson of the Research School of Chemistry at the Australian National University visited Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago to work with Mr James C. Sullivan on pulse radiolysis of caged metal ions, during January 1977.

Dr D. £. A. Catcheside of the Flinders University of South Australia visited Professor D. D. Perkins of Stanford University to conduct research into genetic recombination in the fungus Neurospora, from 5 January to 4 May 1 977.

Professor R. A. Antonia and Dr A. J. Chambers of the University of Newcastle visited the Scripps Institution of Oceanography to work with Professor C. W. Van Atta and Dr C. A. Friehe, both of the University of California at San Diego and the Scripps Institution, on a study of smallscale structure of atmospheric turbulence, in May and June 1 977.

Dr It J. Lafferty of the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University visited Dr D. Talmage of the University of Colorado Medical Center at Denver for research into the ‘in vitro’ response of T-cells to normal and oncogenic cells, from 26 March to 30 April 1977.

Mr S. T. Willatt of La Trobe University visited Dr H. M. Taylor at Iowa State University and Mr R. G. Struss of the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) in Ames, Iowa to work on neutron radiography of in situ ‘ plant root systems, from May to July 1 977.

Mr I. F. Allison of the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science visited the U.S.A. to work with Mr S. Ackley of the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) on research into energy exchanges and interaction between Antarctic sea ice, atmosphere and ocean, from June to August 1977.

Professor J. F. Lovering of the University of Melbourne and Professor A. E. Ringwood and Drs S. R. Taylor and W. Compston of the Research School of Earth Sciences of the Australian National University participated in the NASA Lunar Science Conference in Houston from 14 March to 18 March 1977 where they reported on their research work on lunar samples.

Dr A. M. Gill of the CSIRO Division of Plant Industry visited a number of institutions in the U.S.A. to exchange scientific information on bushfire research and management, from 3 1 July to 28 September 1977.

Mr N. Kemp of the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery joined a U.S. expedition to Antarctica led by Professor J. W. Cosgriff of Wayne State University to collect and study Triassic vertebrate fossils of the Fremouw Formation in the Cumulus Hills of the Transantarctic Mountains, from midOctober 1977 to mid-February 1978.

Professor S. Rosenblat of the University of Melbourne visited Professor S. H. Davis of the John Hopkins University to undertake a collaborative project on bifurcation from infinity. This visit was for four weeks in October-November 1977.

Professor B. H. J. McKellar of the University of Melbourne visited Professor M. Scaldron of the University of Arizona to study mesonic effects in nuclei, for four weeks in November 1977.

Ongoing Activities were as follows:

A high energy physics program including the Department of Physics of the University of Melbourne and the Department of Physics of Indiana University continued in 1977. Professor D. W. Devins and Drs W. Jones and Dr Friesel of Indiana University visited the University of Melbourne, from 29 January to 1 9 February 1 977, as part of this ongoing project.

A project on astrometric studies of nearby stars from the Southern Hemisphere involving Assistant Professor P. A. Ianna of the Leander McCormick Observatory of the University of Virginia and the Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatory of the Australian National University continued through 1977. Professor Ianna visited Australia as part of this project.

A program employing lunar laser ranging equipment involving collaboration between the Division of National Mapping of the Department of National Development and NASA, continued during the year.

Collaboration between the University of Georgia and the University of Queensland and Macquarie University on earthworm and glow-worm bioluminescence began in late 1976. This project involves co-operation between Assistant Professor J. E. Wampler of the University of Georgia and Dr B. G. M. Jamieson of the University of Queensland on studies of earthworm bioluminescence and between Professor J. Lee of the University of Georgia and Professor J. H. Green of Macquarie University on glow-worm bioluminescence.

A collaborative research project between Dr J. P. Ting and Mr Z. Hanscomb of the University of California, and Dr C. B. Osmond of the Australian National University on environmental factors affecting prickly pear growth concluded on 30 April 1977.

Eight seminars were held under the Agreement as follows: on Lobster and Rock Lobster Ecology and Physiology, held in Perth from 26 January to 1 February 1 977. on Boiler-Turbine Modelling and Control, held in Sydney from 14 to 18 February 1977. on New Particles seen in Cosmic Ray and Accelerator Physics, held in Canberra from 20 to 24 June 1 977. on Poisonous Plants, held in Logan, Utah from 20 to 24 June 1977. on Basic Resistance Mechanisms of Bacterial Spores, held in Madison, Wisconsin from 10 to 1 3 October 1 977. on Electromagnetic Exploration Methods in DeeplyWeathered Terranes held in Sydney from 14 to 17 November 1977. on Energy Storage, Compression and Switching, held in Canberra and Sydney from IS to 2 1 November 1977. on Evolution of Light-Trapping Systems, held in the EastWest Centre, Honolulu from 12 to 16 December 1977.

Inter-Governmental Agency Arrangements. The following arrangements exist:

A Memorandum of Understanding between the US National Science Foundation and the Department of Science to foster international co-operation in scientific ballooning by jointly operating the Australian Balloon Launching Station, signed on S August 197S, pursuant to the US/Australia Agreement for Scientific and Technical Cooperation. The Memorandum was renewed in August 1976 for one year and renewed again on 26 May 1977 for a further year commencing 6 August 1 977.

Arrangements for the exchange of information between Government agencies in Australia and the USA in the fields of drug analysis and detection, and water resources. The exchange of information in drug analysis and detection involves the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories of the Department of Science and the US Drug Enforcement Administration.

The arrangement for exchange of information in water resources involves CSIRO and the US Department of the Interior.

An arrangement between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the US Department of Commerce and the Ionospheric Prediction Service of the Department of Science, became operative on 22 July 1977. The arrangement covers a collaborative program to observe radio and optical emissions from the sun and their effect on high-frequency radio signals around the world.

  1. India/Australia Science and Technology Agreement (signed 26 February 1975). During 1977, twelve Australian scientists visited India and two Indian scientists visited Australia under the Agreement. Details are given below.

Visits to India by Australian Scientists:

In January 1977 Dr J. A. Sinden of the University of New England attended the 64th Indian Science Congress in Bhubaneshwar, and visited the Punjab Agricultural University and Orissa Agricultural University for discussions on resources management.

In January-February 1977 Dr C. G. Thomas of the CSIRO Division of Process Technology visited the Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur to collaborate with Indian scientists on ore agglomeration studies.

In January-February 1977 Mr D. W. Kerr of the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics visited the National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Dehra Dun, and other Indian agencies for lectures and discussions on the magnetotelluric method of geological investigation.

In June 1977 Professor G. M. Philip ofthe University of Sydney visited the National Oceanographic Research Institute, Goa, the National Geophysical Research Institute, Hyderabad, the University of Cochin, and various mining projects for discussions on marine geology, coal exploration and applied geochemistry.

In June 1977 Dr J. D. Colwell ofthe CSIRO Division of Soils made a visit to several Indian research institutions to assess the results of experiments on fertiliser applications.

In November 1977 Professor A. F. Wilson ofthe University of Queensland and Dr R. W. Nesbitt of the University of Adelaide visited India to take part in a symposium and field studies on archaean geochemistry and geochronology.

In November 1977 four agricultural scientists (Dr P. D. Whitman, Dr D. E. Byth, and Mr E. S. Wallis of the University of Queensland, and Mr F. R. From, a farmer and expert on pigeon-pea production) visited India to exchange information and make field studies on the agronomy breeding of pigeon-pea.

In December 1977 Dr J. W. Possingham, Chief of the CSIRO Division of Horticultural Research, visited India to attend a symposium on citrus horticulture and to study horticultural research at various Indian Institutions.

Visits to Australia by Indian Scientists:

Dr M. S. Naik of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, visited Australia from August to December 1977 to participate in research on biological nitrogen fixation at the Waite Agricultural Research Institute.

Dr G. S. R. Krishnamurti of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, visited Australia from October to December 1 977 to carry out a research project on soil structure at the CSIRO Division of Soils.

  1. Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)/Australia Science and Technology Agreement (signed 24 August 1 976).
  2. One scientist from Australia visited Germany. Three West German officials and seven West German industrialists visited Australia. Details are as follows:

Dr N Exon of the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics visited West Germany for three months from August to November 1977 to assist in the evaluation of data accumulated during the ‘Valdivia’ cruise mentioned below.

A three-man scientific delegation from the FRG, led by Dr G. Lehr ofthe Federal Ministry for Research and Technology, visited Australia in April/May 1977 for discussions on Agreement matters and on a proposal for a coal liquefaction project.

Seven industrialists from various FRG commercial organisations led by Professor K. H. Imhausen also visited Australia during the same period to discuss the coal liquefaction project.

  1. Marine Science- Ten Australian scientists participated in marine science expeditions on board West German research vessels. Details are:

Three Australian scientists from the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics and six from the Flinders University of South Australia took pan in a marine geological and geophysical survey to the north west of Australia on board the West German Research Vessel ‘Valdivia’ ‘. The cruise took place over the period February to June 1977.

On 18 December Mr D. J. Tranter of the CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography left Australia to join the FRG Research Vessel ‘Walter Herwig’, for a sevenweek expedition to study krill in Antarctic waters.

  1. Australia/USSR Agreement on Scientific and Technical Co-operation (signed 15 January 1975). In 1977, twelve Australian scientists visited the Soviet Union. Twenty one Soviet scientists visited Australia, including an exploratory delegation to investigate the possibilities for co-operation in the field of animal sciences. Details of the visits are:

    1. a) Visits by Australian Scientists to the Soviet Union:

Dr B. J. McAveney, CSIRO, Australian Numerical Meteorology Research Centre, to study computation methods and investigate atmospheric modelling techniques 4 May to 3 November 1977.

Dr R. C. Horwitz, CSIRO, Division of Mineralogy, to study the palaeogeography ofthe Precambrian II System ofthe USSR-1 1 May to 23 June 1977.

Dr G. Buselli, CSIRO, Division of Mineral Physics, to conduct discussions and comparison experiments on the inductive properties of minerals- 1 6 May to 1 1 September 1977.

  1. M. Francis, W.A. Depanment of Agriculture; D. R. Marshall, CSIRO, Division of Plant Industry; R. A. Mcintosh, Sydney University, for an Australian/Soviet symposium on the use of genetic resources in plant breed- ing-21 May to 3 June 1977.
  2. N. Bowden, W. A. Depanment of Agriculture; J. D. Colwell, CSIRO, Division of Soils, to study agrochemical services and the use of fertilisers- I June to 28 June 1 977.
  3. Thomson, CSIRO, Division of Plant Industry; G. Constable, N.S.W. Depanment of Agriculture, to study cotton breeding and agronomy- 25 July to 14 August 1977.

  4. A. Hamilton, P. M. Mcculloch, University of Tasmania, to undertake joint astronomical observations and investigations ofthe microstructure in radio emission from pulsars- 8 October to 12 December 1977.

    1. Visits by Soviet Scientists to Australia:
  5. Y. Voronin, All Union Research Institute of Plant Production; A. Y. Sikura, Ukranian Science Research Institute for Plant Protection, to study biological methods of plant protection- 15 January to 1 1 March 1977.

Dr V. A. Troitskaya, Institute of Earth Physics, Academy of Sciences of USSR, for discussions on co-operation in geomagnetism- 3 February to 2 March 1977.

Dr M. B. Gokhberg, Institute of Earth Physics, Academy of Sciences of USSR, for geomagnetic research on the electroconductivity ofthe earth’s mantle- 17 February to 18 March 1977.

Mr G. K. Shutov, Byelorussian Agricultural Research Institute; Ms L. Kovlenko, All Union Research Institute for Plant Production; Mr A. M. Umnov, All Union Research Institute for Phytopathology, to collect samples of native Australian cotton, fodder, cereal and pulse plant varieties- 10 March to 9 May 1977.

Or S. A. Sidorenko, Dr A. S. Novikova, Geological Institute of Academy of Sciences of USSR, for a comparative study of pre-Cambrian structures- 25 May to 15 July 1977.

Dr I. S. Zektser, Mr R. G. Dzhamalov, Institute of Water Problems of Academy of Sciences of USSR, to study regional hydrological evaluation and underground flows-30 June to 19 August 1977.

Dr L. I. Matveyenko, Institute of Space Research, to follow up earlier Very Long Base Interferometry (VLBI) experiments and assess possibility for further co-operation in interferometry measurements- IS October to 27 October 1977.

Ms G. I. Sukhoruchenko, Dr V. N. Burov, All Union Research Institute of Plant Protection, to study genetic methods for the control of agricultural pests- 5 November to 12 December 1977.

Dr I. G. Moiseev, Crimea Astrophysical Observatory, to observe variability of selected radio sources- 19 November 1977 to 15 January 1978.

Dr O. Pokhotelov, Institute of Earth Physics, Academy of Sciences of USSR, to present lectures and to study plasma physics and the earth’s atmosphere- 3 December 1977 to 12 January 1978.

Mr L. S. Stefanyuk, Ministry of Agriculture; Dr B. A. Bagri, Academy of Agricultural Sciences-, Mr E. G. Shugai, All Union Research Institute for Sheep and Goat Production; Mr A. P. Zharenov, Ministry of Agriculture; M. A. Kosminski, Ministry of Agriculture, to assess opportunities for co-operation in the field of animal sciences under the Australia/USSR Agreement- 29 November 1977 to 14 December 1977.

Consumer Price Index (Question No. 238)

Mr Willis:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

What was the approximate proportionate influence of each of the following factors influencing the consumer price index during 1977: (a) indirect taxes and charges, (b) the petrol price increase, (c) devaluation, (d) movements in international prices, and (e) other.

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

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

The Austraiian Statistician has not made any analyses of price movements reflected in the consumer price index which would enable parts (a), (d) and (e) of the question to be answered. The quantitative estimation of contributions of various causes to aggregative price change is necessarily dependent on a number of assumptions and assessments which are not generally regarded as part of the Statistician’s function.

However, with regard to part (b) of the question, the Statistician has estimated that changes in prices of petrol have contributed 0.48 per cent of the total movement of 9.3 per cent in the All Groups CPI (for the weighted average of six State capital cities) between December quarter 1976 and December quarter 1977. Of this, 0.32 per cent occurred in December quarter 1977. These figures relate only to the direct effects of changes in petrol prices and do not include estimates of any secondary effects (such as higher freight costs) that might occur in prices of other items in the CPI.

With regard to pan (c) of the question, the Statistician has not made estimates of the effects of devaluation on the CPI. However, in order to assist recent national wage cases, he has made estimates of the effect on the CPI of changes in the prices of wholly or substantially imported goods. The estimated effects between December quarter 1976 and December quarter 1977 amounted to 1.24 per cent out of the total increase in the CPI of 9.3 per cent. It must be emphasised that an estimate of the effects of changes in prices of imported goods is not the same thing as an estimate of the effects of changes in exchange rates. For example, it does not take account of effects of changes in prices of imported raw materials or changes in prices of locally produced goods which are competitive with imported goods.

Financial Corporations Act: Permanent Building Societies (Question No. 339)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

  1. 1) On what dates have there been meetings of each committee appointed under the Financial Corporations Act 1974 since his predecessor’s answer to me on 31 March 1977 (Hansard, page 88 1 ).
  2. In view of repeated difficulties faced by investors in and borrowers from permanent building societies in Queensland (Hansard, 18 March 1976, pages 771 and 772; 6 April 1976, page 1337; 5 October 1977, page 1622; 18 October 1977, page 2062 and 26 October 1977, page 2387), when did the Government last consider proclaiming Part IV of the Act so that nationwide regulations can be made specifying the asset ratios, lending policies and interest rates of such societies.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The following Financial Corporations Act Advisory Committee meetings have been held since 31 March 1977:

Permanent Building Societies Committee, 20 April 1977, 23 August 1977, and 10 March 1978; Money Market Corporations Committee, 5 May 1977, 9 September 1977, and 18 April 1978; Pastoral Finance Companies Committee, 7 October 1977; Credit Co-operatives Committee, 13 September 1977; Finance Companies and General Financiers Committee, 4 May 1977, and 20 September 1977; Authorised Money Market Dealers Committee, 18 April 1977, and 27 September 1977; Retailers Committee, 13 October 1977.

  1. The Government did not consider it appropriate to proclaim Part IV of the Financial Corporations Act specifically to deal with the difficulties experienced by some Queensland building societies last year because, as Ministers of this Government have previously stated (Hansard, 18 March 1976, page 772; 6 April 1976, page 1338; 18 October 1977, page 2063; and 26 October 1977, pages 2391, 2392, 2395 and 2396), the Act is not designed for such purposes.

The Government has said that it plans to implement a deposits insurance scheme to strengthen permanent building societies and protect depositors.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Question No. 392)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. In order to provide services in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting held in Sydney, how many officers (a) from his Department and (b) from instrumentalities associated with his portfolio, travelled from their home base to another location.
  2. What was the cost of travel involved in these movements.
  3. What was the total cost of travelling and other allowances paid to these officers.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) 37. One officer departed Canberra for Sydney on 6 February, sixteen on 8 February; eight on 9 February; four on 10 February and eight on 1 1 and 12 February. The majority of officers resumed duty in the Department either on Friday, 1 7 February or Monday, 20 February.

  2. $261.40. The Department of Foreign Affairs was responsible for paying for travel and other allowances of only five officers.
  3. $1,859.30.

Medical Benefits: Multiple Sclerosis (Question No. 410)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 March 1 978:

Are multiple sclerosis patients subjected to particular financial hardship because they are not entitled to assessment through Medibank for necessary physiotherapy which they must undergo as part of their treatment for the greater part of their lives; if so, will the Government undertake to extend the basic Medibank cover for physiotherapy for these patients and for other patients whose ailments require physiotherapy.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: lam aware of the problems faced by sufferers of multiple sclerosis.

The present basic medical benefits arrangements cover medical treatment by legally qualified medical practitioners, certain prescribed medical services rendered by approved dental practitioners in the operating theatres of approved hospitals, and consultations by participating optometrists.

In view of the continuing need for restraint in Commonwealth expenditure, it is unlikely that the basic medical benefits arrangements will be extended to cover physiotherapy in the near future.

I would point out that the Commonwealth already provides financial assistance to the States for schemes which allow the provision of physiotherapy. These schemes are the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act and the Community Health Program.

Under the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act, where a State contributes to an approved paramedical service, which may include physiotherapy, the Commonwealth will reimburse 50 per cent of this amount. The service must be wholly or mainly for aged persons in their homes. I should point out that only South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania have become participating States under this scheme to date.

Under the Community Health Program, a wide variety of projects is funded in each State and many of those projects provide physiotherapy services. Commonwealth assistance under the Community Health Program takes the form of an annual block grant to each State for the State’s total program of projects which have been jointly approved by the State and the Commonwealth for funding in the year concerned. The Commonwealth generally meets 50 per cent of capital costs and 75 per cent of operating costs of approved projects, the balances generally being contributed by the State. In the first instance, it is a matter for each State to propose projects for inclusion in its approved program.

The availability of Commonwealth funds for new projects under the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act and the Community Health Program is a matter for consideration by the Government in the Budget context. Subject to the outcome of that consideration, I would be most willing to receive from the States new proposals aimed at alleviating the problems faced by sufferers of multiple sclerosis.

Taxation: Appeals (Question No. 420)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many appeals has the Commissioner of Taxation made to (a) the High Court of Australia, (b) the Federal Court of Australia and (c) the State Supreme Courts during the years (i) 1975, (ii) 1976 and (iii) 1977.
  2. How many of these appeals in each category has the Commissioner of Taxation lost.
  3. What is the average cost to the Commissioner of an appeal to the High Court
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. On the basis of the costs paid by the Commissioner in the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 in respect of High Court decisions, the average cost to the Commissioner of an appeal to the High Court is approximately $4,400. This figure is based on costs awarded against the Commissioner in all cases to which he was a party, i.e., appeals made by the Commissioner and appeals made by taxpayers.

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 475)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many copies (a) each daily newspaper and (b) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the head office and (ii) other offices of his Depanment.
  2. What was the cost of these purchases during 1 976-77.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to Question No. 468 (Hansard, 4 April 1978, page 978).

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 505)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the head office and (ii) other offices of the Department of Education.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in that Department.
Mr Staley:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. 1 ) Six full-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in the Department of Education head office. Three full-time and 7 part-time staff are employed in other offices of the Department.
  2. (i) $89,696; (ii) $1,617.

Shipping: Quarantine (Question No. 538)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1 978:

  1. Who were the departmental officers who visited the M.V. Vishna Kalyan in Sydney on 1 S June 1 977.
  2. Were Mr Perriman and Mr G. Temme, who were inquiring into the grievances of Mr W. F. Toomer, among departmental officers inspecting the ship.
  3. Was the ship inspected by quarantine staff; if so, by whom and when and what was the nature of their report.
  4. Did the report refer to any evidence of rodent, insect or cockroach infestation.
  5. Did Dr R. R. Bull, Director of Health, N.S.W., sign and issue to Captain Alvares, master of the M.V. Vishna Kalyan, a letter which stated that (a) no visual evidence of rodent or cockroach infestation had been found and ( b ) generally the hygiene of the ship was of a satisfactory standard.
  6. If so, why was the letter issued.
  7. Is it normal departmental practice to issue these letters; if so, under what circumstances.
  8. Were Mr Perriman and Mr Temme present when the letter was handed over, if so, did they read or were they made aware of the contents of the letter.
  9. Was the M.V. Vishna Kalyan inspected by quarantine staff in Melbourne on or about 27 June 1 977.
  10. 10) If so, who were the quarantine staff who inspected the ship in Melbourne.
  11. What evidence was found during the inspection in Melbourne of (a) rodent, (b) cockroach, (c) grain insect or (d) khapra beetle infestation.
  12. During the inspection were khapra beetle casts, larvae and adults found, which were subsequently identified as Trogaderma Graniarium
  13. What action was taken following the quarantine inspection in Melbourne.
  14. Did the master produce Dr Bull’s letter, if so, for what purpose.
  15. Were the quarantine reports from the Melbourne inspection of the M.V. Vishna Kalyan made available to Mr Perriman and Mr Temme.
  16. Did the M.V. Vishna Kalyan visit other ports in Australia after 27 June 1977; if so, what quarantine action was taken in relation to it at these ports.
  17. 17) Has the M.V. Vishna Kalyan an unsatisfactory quarantine history; if so, what features of its quarantine history have been unsatisfactory in previous visits to Australian ports.
  18. What is the departmental list termed the ‘Khapra List’ and was the M.V. Vishna Kalyan on this list on 1 S June 1977.
  19. Has his attention been drawn to reports in the Farmers’ Weekly of 14 July 1977, official organ of the Farmers’ Union of W.A. (lnc), concerning statements made to the master of the M.V. Vishna Kalyan in Sydney on IS June 1977 by officers or an officer of his Department.
  20. Has his attention also been drawn to the allegation that departmental officers or an officer had referred to departmental intentions ‘to get rid of an inspector’; if so, can he advise whether the statement was in fact made; if so (a) who made the statement and (b) was the statement made in the presence of Mr Perriman and/or Mr Temme.
  21. 1 ) If he is satisfied that no statement of this nature was made by any departmental officer, can he advise the means by which he satisfied himself in this respect.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Dr R. Bull (Director, New South Wales Division), Mr R. Fernandez (Quarantine Inspector) and Mr R. Broadhurst (Quarantine Assistant, Grade 3 ).
  2. Mr R. Perriman and Mr G. Temme accompanied the departmental officers on a special tour of inspection of the vessel on 1 S June 1 977 for the purpose of familiarising themselves with the procedure involved in conducting a quarantine inspection of a vessel.
  3. and (4) The vessel was inspected except for holds full of cargo on 14 June 1977 by Mr Fernandez and Mr Broadhurst. The superstructure was examined on this date and found to be satisfactory. There were old traces of rodent infestation in the crew galley and a few cockroaches were seen. By 16 June 1977 with some cargo removed, it was possible for Mr Broadhurst to inspect the tops of most holds. Old traces of rodent infestation were found in No. 4 hold in the tween deck area. The lower holds were still full of cargo and could not be examined. A Plant Quarantine Officer reported evidence of khapra beetle in the store. The vessel was also visited on 17, 18 and 19 June 1977 for inspections of the galley waste storage areas. During this period the hatches were closed except for intermittent loading. The ship sailed from Sydney on 22 June 1977 for Melbourne with its holds still half full of cargo.
  4. Yes. The letter stated: ‘On a special tour of inspection of your ship on 1 S June 1 977 by officials of this Department, there was no visible evidence of infestation with either rodents or cockroaches. Generally, it was found that hygiene was of a satisfactory standard. On behalf of the Department I wish to thank you for your co-operation throughout the tour of inspection’.
  5. The Master requested it. It is understood that the voyage had been his first overseas command following eighteen years of administration and he felt disquiet at the implications raised by a special tour of inspection of his vessel by a party which included non-quarantine personnel. His ship had been fumigated before he left India and it is understood that he was concerned that the inspection could imply to his owners that there was an inadequate standard of cleanliness throughout his ship.
  6. No. However, for various reasons Masters of vessels occasionally ask for Bills of Health or Certificates of Cleanliness relating to their ships.
  7. No. Mr Perriman and Mr Temme did not see the letter.
  8. On 27 and 28 June 1977.
  9. 10) Mr R. Dine (Quarantine Assistant, Grade 4) and Mr M. Khan (Quarantine Assistant, Grade 1 ) Also, on 28 June 1977, the Senior Quarantine Inspector, Mr F. Atherton, made an inspection ofthe vessel.
  10. Rodent droppings in several parts of the vessel including the crew’s galley, provision store and No. 2 hold; live cockroaches in galleys, officers ‘ pantry and petty officers ‘ mess; live grain insects in the main provision store; dead khapra beetles (adults, larvae and casts) in the main provision store.
  11. Yes.
  12. The quarantine services at Adelaide and Fremantle were advised of the findings and sent copies of the Inspectors’ reports. There was no time before sailing to institute baiting for rodents, or institute spray treatment against cockroaches while the vessel was in Melbourne.
  13. Yes. The letter was produced and shown to inspection staff, presumably to suggest that further inspections were not necessary.
  14. No.
  15. The Vishna Kalyan visited Adelaide on 2 July and Fremantle on 10 July 1977. Quarantine inspections were undertaken at both ports and it appeared that the vessel had been cleaned during passage to Adelaide and to Fremantle. Against this background and in the light of the two quarantine inspections the following quarantine procedures were undertaken:

Adelaide: Trapping and baiting of the crew’s and officers’ galley were commenced the same day and continued until the vessel left Adelaide for Fremantle on 4 July 1977. Three rats were caught after this operation. A report on this action was sent to Fremantle.

Fremantle: The vessel was almost fully loaded and stayed only 24 hours; no cargo was discharged. It was estimated that there were five rats on the vessel and accordingly anticoagulant baits were laid down throughout the ship. Pulse beetles were found in coffee beans in the store and these were ordered to be soaked in salt water and disposed of at sea. The galley was sprayed with a long-lasting insecticide against cockroach infestation.

  1. Prior to arriving in Sydney, the Vishna Kalyan had called at Brisbane on 9 June 1 977. The ship inspection report indicated that rodent, insect and state of general hygiene were satisfactory on inspection. The vessel had previously visited Brisbane on 7 June 1973 when it was recorded that health and sanitary states were satisfactory. The ship has visited Sydney ten times between 1966 and 1972. The quarantine history has been satisfactory during this period. The visit to Melbourne on 27 June 1977 was the first to that port and there is therefore no previous history of inspections. The standard of hygiene on this vessel is that expected on general cargo carrying ships of advanced age.
  2. The khapra list is supplied by the Department of Primary Industry. It contains the names of ships which are potential carriers of grain infested with khapra beetle, so that special attention may be given to these vessels on arrival at

Australian pons. The Vishna Kalyan was on this list on 15 June 1977.

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. The allegation has been investigated. No member of the party which visited the vessel had any knowledge of the statement alleged to have been made to the Master.
  3. Each officer comprising the party has been specifically questioned on the matter and each had individually denied having made such a statement or having heard it made by any other member of the party.

Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 660)

Mr N A Brown:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA · LP

wn asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

  1. What are the interdepartmental committees of (a) a permanent and (b) an ad hoc nature on which his Department is presently represented.
  2. What subjects are presently being investigated by each of these interdepartmental committees.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. and (2) It has been the practice of successive governments not to authorise the expenditure of time and money involved in answering questions, such as this, which seek generalised information on interdepartmental committees. I do not intend to depart from that practice. However, if the honourable member wishes to seek information concerning any particular interdepartmental committee, I shall be happy to see if he can be provided with the necessary information.

Ratification of the International Convention on Safe Containers (Question No. 795)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

What steps;

have already been taken and

have still to be taken by Australia to ratify the International Convention on Safe Containers, 1972, which entered into force on 6 September 1977.

Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Action has commenced to prepare the necessary legislation to enable Australia to become a party to this Convention.
  2. Appropriate action will be taken for Australia to become a party to the Convention by accession when the legislation comes into force.

Handicapped Persons: Sales Tax on Vehicles (Question No. 804)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 5 April 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that handicapped persons who are able to drive themselves to and from rehabilitation centres for treatment, have been denied tax exemptions on the purchase of their vehicles on the grounds that they do not use their cars for travelling to and from gainful employment; if so, does the Government agree that this inequitable situation should be amended so that handicapped persons able to drive are encouraged and assisted to purchase motor vehicles in order that they become self reliant, gain easier access to treatment and are better able to obtain gainful employment.
  2. If the Government accepts this proposition, when does it propose to act.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. and (2) One condition of eligibility for the sales tax exemption provided under Exemption Item 1 35a of the sales tax law is that the exempt vehicle be used for transport to and from a place of gainful employment.

The Item was introduced to encourage and enable persons in respect of whom the Director-General of Social Security has certified that they have lost the use of one or both legs to such an extent as to be permanently unable to use public transport, to enter or remain in the workforce.

Further widening of access to the concession would raise issues of social welfare policy and, in so doing, prompt the question whether the sales tax law is the proper channel for providing social welfare benefits. For example, recourse to the sales tax law, even in its present form, effectively debars from access to the benefit persons who can afford only a second-hand vehicle or no vehicle at all.

The Government has had these issues under study for some time. There is no easy or simple answer to them, expecially in a time of severe budgetary constraint. However, they will continue to be kept under review.

Animal Quarantine (Question No. 884)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 April 1978.

  1. What procedures have been established or will be es tablished to determine the priority of use of the Cocos Island quarantine station in relation to breeds, types of animals and individual breeders who will be wanting to import these animals.
  2. From which countries will animals be permitted to be imported before the Geelong Animal Health Laboratory will be available for back-up testing.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. An expert advisory committee will be established to examine all applications and recommend priorities among species, breeds and types of animals.
  2. Current plans are that before the Australian National

Animal Health Laboratory is established the offshore animal quarantine station will be available for the importation of animals from the United Kingdom and Ireland, Western Europe, the United States, Canada and Japan. Importation of live animals from this range of countries will significantly broaden Australia’s avenues of access to improved genetic material. The availability of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory will further extend this range of countries.

Nursing Homes, Kingston Division (Question No. 894)

Mr Chapman:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) What nursing homes approved under the Nursing

Homes Assistance Act and National Health Act are situated in the Electoral Division of Kingston.

  1. What are the names and addresses of the registered owners of each home.
  2. 3 ) How many beds are in each home.
  3. 4) What are the weekly charges in each home.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3).

Nursing Homes Assistance Act.

  1. The fees quoted above for nursing homes approved under the National Health Act are gross fees for ordinary care patients. The patient’s liability to meet these fees from his own resources is reduced by the amount of Commonwealth and nursing home fund benefits payable. For extensive nursing care patients fees and benefits are $42 a week higher.
  2. Patients accommodated in nursing homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act are required to meet a prescribed fee which may be reduced or waived in individual cases of hardship. As from 1 October 1977 proprietors are required to charge insured patients an additional fee equal to the nursing home fund benefit and benefits are paid by the hospital benefits organisations with which the patients are insured. In South Australia the weekly fees charged from 1 October 1977 are:
  1. Minda Home Incorporated, accommodates patients who are under 16 years as well as older patients. Uninsured patients under 16 are charged a weekly fee of $10.50. Children under 16 whose parents are contributors to a hospital benefits organisation are charged an additional fee equivalent to the fund nursing home benefit which is recovered from the organisation.
  2. The information given on the location of nursing homes has been confirmed with the Electoral Office for Kingston.

Taxation: Deductions for Certain Gifts (Question No. 934)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Treasurer upon notice, on 13 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does paragraph 1 1 ( 1 ) (c) of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1978, which authorises deductions for certain gifts to a public library, public museum or public art gallery, arise from the report made in May 1977 by the interdepartmental committee set up in October 1975 to investigate taxation concessions or other incentives to encourage the arts and their patrons (Hansard, 8 November 1977, page 3 139, question No. 1313(3)).
  2. Why did the Government reject the idea, with which it was in sympathy (Hansard, 8 November 1977, page 3139), of authorising deductions for gifts of works of art for exhibition in parks or squares or buildings open to the public (e.g. the Archibald Foundation in Hyde Park or the statuary and murals in Martin Plaza and the Rundle Street Mall (Hansard, 28 October 1966, page 2423, 8 November 1967, page 2869, 27 November 1968, page 3375, 9 September 1969, page 1013, 21 April 1970, page 1378, 14 October 1970, page 2185, 9 December 197 1 , page 463 1).
  3. Is it proposed to table the report of the interdepartmental committee; if not, why not.
  4. Will he answer this question before the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the Bill.
Mr Howard:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The report by the interdepartmental committee was one of the factors taken into account by the Government.
  2. There would be serious practical difficulties in so doing. These were referred to by the Minister for Home Affairs in the House on 1 3 April 1 978 (Hansard, page 1 448 ).
  3. By longstanding practice, reports of interdepartmental committees are not made public.
  4. Not applicable.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 May 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19780503_reps_31_hor109/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant