House of Representatives
26 February 1980

31^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITIONS
- National Women’s Advisory Council
- Pornographic Publications
- Refugees
- Metric System
- Taxation: Superannuation
- Unemployment
- National Women’s Advisory Council
- Education
- Olympic Games
- Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industries
- Australian Financial System
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
QUESTION
- INTEREST RATES
QUESTION
- PORT OF BURNIE: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
QUESTION
- MONEY SUPPLY
QUESTION
- CHINESE VICE-PREMIER: VISIT TO AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- INTEREST RATES
QUESTION
- TREATMENT OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN IN NEPAL
QUESTION
- INTEREST RATES
QUESTION
- OLYMPIC GAMES
QUESTION
- LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD
QUESTION
- OIL PRICING POLICY
QUESTION
- SOVIET EXPANSIONISM
PRIME MINISTER
- Notice of Motion
- Suspension of Standing Orders
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
QUESTION
- SOVIET EXPANSIONISM
QUESTION
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR INTER-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION
TRANSPORT PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM
DUTY-FREE SHOPPING
SANDY HOLLOW-MARYVALE RAILWAY
VICTORIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSION
QUEENSLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSION
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSION
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
INTEREST RATES
- Discussion of Matter of Public Importance
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
QUESTION
- HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SOVIET UNION
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
ADJOURNMENT
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
ADJOURNMENT
- Olympic Games- Australian Labor Party- Political Broadcasts- Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Mr John Doohan (Question No. 3260)
- Telephone Tapping (Question No. 3435)
- Airbus Aircraft (Question No. 5107)
- National Railway Network (Question No. 5146)
- Aboriginal Affairs: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5207)
- Canberra Housing Statistics (Question No. 5248)

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

page 331

PETITIONS

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

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burns, Mr Calder, Mr Les Johnson, Mr Martyr, Mr Short, Mr Staley and Mr Street.

Petitions received.

Pornographic Publications

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O’Keefe and Mr West.

Petitions received.

Refugees

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Metric System

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

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

Petition received.

Taxation: Superannuation

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

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

Employees and Self-Employed Contributions to approved Superannuation Fund. Your petitioners humbly pray that:

Contributions paid each year to Superannuation Funds should be removed from the Rebate System and made a separate deduction from Assessable Income.
The amount allowed as a deduction to be at least that required to provide a retirement benefit of $ 155,400.

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

Petition received.

Unemployment

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

Their support for and endorsement of the National Women ‘s Advisory Council

We call on the government to

Continue to maintain the National Women’s Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. byMrO’Keefe.

Petition received.

Drug Problems in Australia

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:

More than ten thousand deaths each year in Australia are caused by tobacco usage,

The costs of tobacco-related diseases from hospital and medical expenses from health insurance costs, and from productivity loss from disease and premature death exceed revenue gains to the Government from the tobacco industry.

The tobacco industry is responsible for the tobaccorelated disease and death inasmuch as it actively promotes the consumption of tobacco related products directly via advertising and indirectly via sponsorship of sporting and cultural activities.

Non-smokers represent 64 per cent of the adult population, and of those who do smoke 50 per cent wish to give up smoking.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government to implement the recommendations of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare “Drug Problems in Australia- An intoxicated Society?” which are within the Australian Government’s power to legislate for, namely, recommendations 39-44, 46-52, 54 and 55.

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

Petition received.

Education

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

The petition of certain citizens of NSW respectfully showeth:

Dismay at the reduction in the total expenditure on education proposed for 1 980 and in particular to Government Schools.

Government Schools bear the burden of these cuts, 1 1.2 per cent while non-Government schools will receive an increase of 3.4 per cent.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Armitage, Sir William McMahon and Mr O’Keefe.

Petitions received.

Olympic Games

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

This humble petition of the sportsmen and women and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:

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

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

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

We the undersigned sportsmen and women and citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this humble petition respectively pray that the Australian government do all in its power to ensure the participation of a full Australian contingent in the XXII Olympic Games to be held in Moscow, USSR, from 1 9th July to 3rd August, 1980.

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

Petitions received.

Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industries

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Receive the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Victoria who are gravely concerned at the recommendations of the Draft Report prepared by the Industries Assistance Commission which will:

Affect the employment of all employees and staff of the Churchill Exacto Mill.

Your petitioners therefore pray that their protest be registered, and that the proposed recommendations outlined in the Report be not enacted.

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

Petition received.

Australian Financial System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of James Irvan Horn, an Australian Citizen and British subject of 66 Heytesbury Road, Subiaco, in the State of Western Australia respectfully showeth that the Parliament would be supporting efficient and honest Government by making an inquiry, independent of the current inquiry into the Australian Financial System, into the following two related matters:

Firstly to investigate whether Private banks make their greater profit from charges for rendering such services as providing Travellers cheques or letters of credit etc, or from the collection of interest from their clients as borrowers on money previously lent at interest.
Secondly to investigate whether the carrying out of any recommendation to increase interest rates would financially advantage the Chairman and/or members of the Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System if such members of the committee are Private Bank shareholders or financial by advantage Private banks as Proprietors.

Your petitioner therefore humbly prays that the Parliament when examining any recommendation by the Chairman and/or committee of inquiry into the Australian Financial System will at the same time consider any findings Parliament has made as a result of investigations related to ( 1 ) and (2) set out above.

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

– The Prime Minister will recall quite vividly that he said at Chadstone on 2 December, during the 1977 election campaign, that interest rates would fall by 2 per cent in the next 12 months. He will recall that he said further- I quote him exactly:

It is a target that can and will be achieved.

He was, he went on to say, talking about- I quote directly again:

. rates that directly affected people, such as bank lending and home lending rates.

Mr HOWARD:

– Before I sat down a moment ago the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, I think, asked: ‘What about inflation?’ I am more than happy to answer his interjection. The average rate of inflation over the past 12 months in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries has been, according to the consumer price index, 12 per cent. During that period the rate of inflation, according to that same measure, has been 10 per cent. Our rate of inflation is now significantly below the average of the industrialised world. That is in sharp contrast to what it was four or five years ago. It is doing even better, in a comparative sense, than it was in late 1 977. Over and above that, our rate of inflation is also a touch below the trade weighted average of our principal trading partners. The fact is that this country, in the face of very difficult international economic circumstances, is out-performing most of the industrialised world. That is something about which we should be extremely pleased.

page 335

QUESTION

PORT OF BURNIE: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for Industrial Relations been informed that as a result of a dispute between the Waterside Workers Federation and the Transport Workers Union the Marine Board of Burnie has decided to close the port of Burnie? What effect will this move have on local industry and local employment? Is there any end in sight to this disruptive dispute?

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

-The action of the Transport Workers Union in the port of Burnie has been completely irresponsible and is in total disregard of a decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The TWU, as the honourable member has said, has stopped all cargo going through the port of Burnie. This latest development is only the culmination of a dispute which started in the early weeks of January. It involves a demarcation dispute with the Waterside Workers Federation. It is worth noting that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission made an order in relation to this demarcation dispute following legislation which was introduced by this Government and passed by this Parliament specifically to deal with disputes of this kind. By disregarding this order the TWU has thumbed its nose at the people of Tasmania.

In addition, the Australian Council of Trade Unions has a long-standing policy to minimise the effects of industrial disruption, particularly of shipping services, on the people of Tasmania. It has accepted an obligation, as the leader of the trade union movement in Australia, to settle demarcation disputes. If the people of Burnie and Tasmania are to be relieved of the results of this irresponsible action, the ACTU has to carry out its obligations, which it has already accepted in respect of demarcation disputes, and ensure that the Transport Workers Union heeds the order made by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and allows normal shipping services to resume through the port.

page 335

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

-I inform the House that we have present in the Gallery this afternoon the Honourable Agatha Barbara, the Maltese Minister for Labour, Culture and Welfare. On behalf of the House I extend a warm welcome to our distinguished visitor.

Honourable members- Hear, hear!

page 335

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

TREATMENT OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN IN NEPAL

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-Is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of a Press report stating that an Australian citizen arrested for smuggling in Katmandu received insufficient attention from the Australian Embassy in New Delhi at a time when he was being mistreated by the prison authorities in Nepal? Can the Minister advise the House of the situation in relation to those allegations by the person concerned and of what actions may be taken in future if such a situation arises?

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

– I have read Press reports referring to a Mr Clunes who was posted to the Australian Embassy in Rangoon as a building and services officer and who was arrested in Nepal on 16 November 1978. At this time Mr Clunes was on recreation leave. He had advised the Embassy that he would take this leave in Bangkok. He was charged with attempting to smuggle into Nepal three suitcases containing watches and pocket calculators. He made a written statement to Nepalese Customs authorities admitting the offence. In this statement Mr Clunes also admitted to having travelled to Nepal in August 1978 with a similar consignment. He stated that he had received $US 1,000 for carrying the first consignment and about SUS600, with $400 to be paid later, for the second consignment. I would like to emphasise that Mr Clunes received normal consular assistance from Australian and British representatives. The Australian High Commission in New Delhi, which has consular responsibility for Nepal, learned of Mr Clunes ‘s arrest on 25 November 1978. The Consul travelled to Nepal specifically to see Mr Clunes four days later and he subsequently saw Mr Clunes on three other occasions. As well as this, the British Consul visited Mr Clunes in prison on 22 occasions.

My Department has no record of Mr Clunes bringing to the attention of the visiting officers the poor conditions alleged in a recent Press report, or of the alleged beatings. The Australian High Commission in New Delhi and the British Embassy in Katmandu made representations to the Nepalese authorities to have Mr Clunes brought to trial or released. Twelve months after his arrest Mr Clunes was tried and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, with the time served up to that date being taken into account. Mr Clunes was released under the King’s pardon on 29 December 1979 and was assisted home by the Department of Foreign Affairs. In all these cases the Department and the Australian representatives overseas have acted in the interests of Australian citizens finding themselves in trouble overseas.

page 337

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr HUMPHREYS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Treasurer. I ask him whether he stated on 1 1 February 1980:

I Ve acquired over the last couple of years, I think, a reasonable working knowledge of economics. But I don’t claim to be an expert on it.

Does that explain why it is possible to borrow from some trading banks on overdraft at 10 per cent and invest those funds with absolute security in government bonds at 1 1 .2 per cent?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

– The answer to the first part of the question is yes, both as to the statement I made and as to the self-evident truth of it. At least I trust that I display slightly more originality in my statements than does the Leader of the Opposition, who has to borrow from deceased members of the House of Commons for his remarks. As to the second part of the question -

Opposition members interjecting–

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. I call on honourable members on my left to maintain silence while the answer is being given. The level of interjection is not within the dignity of the House. I ask all honourable members to conform with the dignity of the House. I ask the honourable member for Lalor, who has been here but a short time, not to interject while I am speaking; or I will deal with him under the Standing Orders.

Mr HOWARD:

– As to the general question of interest rates, both official and otherwise, it goes without saying that the Government has kept developments in the bond market in this area under very close review and will continue to do so.

page 337

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has he seen reports that the Australian Embassy in Moscowspecifically the Olympic attache- has been instructed to cease assisting in arrangements on behalf of the Australian Olympic Federation? What is the position in relation to the attache?

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

– I confirm that the Australian Embassy in Moscow has been instructed to cease the functional arrangements it has been making on behalf of the Australian Olympic Federation. These arrangements were being made by Mr Harrison, the Third Secretary at the Moscow Embassy, in his role as Olympic attache. Mr Harrison’s appointment as Olympic attache was made by the Australian Olympic Federation to the Soviet Olympic organising committee. I should like to emphasise that it is not a government to government appointment. The appointee is usually not an official and need not even be a national of the country whose Olympic body appoints him. In the present case, the Australian Olympic Federation requested the services of a diplomatic officer, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs agreed because of the protection afforded him by his diplomatic status and his access to Soviet officialdom. In view of the Government’s firm view that Australia should not participate in the Moscow Games, appropriate steps will be taken with respect to Mr Harrison’s continued availability and designation as Olympic attache.

Mr Morris:

- Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under Standing Order 321,1 require the

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the shrinking disparity between the price of liquefied petroleum gas and petrol, which is now inhibiting the conversion of vehicles to LPG, is directly attributable to the fact that the Australian oil price is now lagging import parity by up to $5 a barrel and that, under the Government’s policy, LPG is priced precisely at the full world parity price? Does the Government intend to follow through its world parity pricing concept by raising the Australian oil price to the true world price so that the normal gap between LPG and petrol will be re-established, or will the Government achieve this by the alternative of abandoning its high-priced export parity LPG pricing policy?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The thrust of the honourable gentleman’s question seemed to be that he would like the price of oil on the Australian market to go up even further so that there would be a greater differential between the price of petrol and the price of liquefied petroleum gas. The honourable gentleman has said very plainly that a tax that he would place on the oil producers would raise more revenue than the Government’s levy. It would appear that under the honourable gentleman’s policies the price paid by Australian motorists would be higher than it now is. The honourable gentleman knows quite well that he is on record as saying that his proposed resource tax on the oil producers would raise more revenue than the present levy. Under those circumstances, it is nonsense to suggest that the price would be lower because -

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– If the honourable gentleman were to squeeze the oil companies in that way there would be no exploration and if he were to squeeze -

Opposition members interjecting-

Orders, for him to do so. I ask him to comply with the forms of the House.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Mr Speaker, when the Opposition has no argument, it resorts to making allegations which are totally groundless. So that the point may be completely and properly understood, I shall quote to the House an extract of an interview by Mr Ross Gittins of Mr Keating. Mr Gittins asked:

Would the resources tax raise more or less than the oil production levy?

That refers to a resource tax on the oil producers. Mr Keating replied:

I think it would probably raise more.

Mr Gittins said:

That sounds to me as if a resources tax is just a different version of a branch of the tax office at every petrol pump ‘.

Mr Keating replied:

Well, it is to some extent.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The Government remains committed to oil parity pricing because it is the only policy which will look after the future interests of this country. The oil price is fixed on Saudi Arabian light crude. We know quite well that the Government announced in June of last year that there would be some flexibility in the flowing through of those price increases to the Australian consumer. It has been normal, while the policy has lasted, for the price adjustments to be made about January and about June. Therefore, the fact that the $2 price increase did not flow through a few weeks ago was very natural and if the honourable gentleman had any capacity to look ahead I think he ought to have been able to foresee that. It does not represent any breach in the Government’s oil parity pricing policy which, let me repeat, is important in a number of respects. It is important to achieve adequate conservation of a scarce resource. It is all very well for the honourable gentleman to say, as he does, that he will take whatever the price is when Labor comes to government- which it never will- and then only put it up in accordance with changes in the consumer price index or in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries price, whichever is the lesser. Under a Labor government that would probably be the OPEC price increase because Labor’s inflation would be higher than the OPEC price increase.

Opposition members interjecting-

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– Honourable gentlemen opposite do not like it very much because they know quite well that that is the kind of circumstance that their policies would create. Under those circumstances, the honourable gentleman is quite misleading when he tries to suggest to the Australian public that the Labor Party would offer cheap petrol to the consumers of Australia, because it would not. Indeed, cheap petrol for Australian motorists would be a very selfish policy because it would mean that this generation of consumers would use up more than its fair share of a scarce Australian resource. I do not believe that the Australian electorate will support a policy that says: ‘ We are going to use up all the oil that is available to us; we are not going to leave any oil for our children ‘.

In addition to that, of course, major developments would not get under way unless there were oil parity pricing policies. The experiments that are now being undertaken- the pilot studies in relation to the liquefaction of brown coal and in relation to the development of the Rundle shale oil deposits- just would never move ahead.

Mr Keating:

- Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I asked the Prime Minister a simple question about liquefied petroleum gas. I do not want a lecture about resource economics. I want an answer about LPG.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The honourable gentleman also asked a simple question about oil parity pricing and is getting a simple answer in relation to it. Unless there is oil parity pricing, significant developments that will add very greatly to Australia ‘s liquid fuel reserves will not take place, whether they be pilot plants for the liquefaction of brown coal, experimentation with black coal or major developments at Rundle which we hope will be able to move forward in the foreseeable future. Development in these areas is dependent upon there being a price for oil which makes those particular projects viable, which makes those particular projects economic. That, of course, is of great importance in the Government’s overall pricing policies and in making sure that Australia achieves a level of self-sufficiency for the future. That is our intention and that is what we are going to do. The main thrust of our policies will certainly be continued.

page 340

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. In the light of comments made in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations with regard to the Australian Wheat Board, can the Minister inform the House when the Board’s 1976-77 annual report and financial statements will be presented to the Parliament?

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

– I am concerned that the Australian Wheat Board has not been able to present its reports to Parliament by the requested dates. The failure to do so is not occasioned by any failure of the Board to recognise its responsibilities, or any lack of endeavour by the Board to meet the requirements of the Senate. Indeed, I was pleased to notice that the Rae Committee recognised the efforts of the Board in its conclusions, in that it stated: the steps now taken by the Board, including the appointment of suitably qualified additional staff and the introduction of new accounting systems and practices appear to be likely to ensure that future financial statements and reports will be both timely and accurate.

Regrettably, the Board has found that the exercise of changing the accounting systems from a pool year to a financial year has been somewhat more complicated and complex than was first thought and it has not been able to meet the requirements of the Senate Committee. The fact is that at the moment the field audit by the Auditor-General’s Office of the Australian Wheat Board’s accounts for 1976-77 is nearing completion and the Board ‘s financial statements in final form have been received by the AuditorGeneral. Subject to there being no unforeseen difficulties, the preparation of the AuditorGeneral ‘s report will commence shortly. Because of this I think it proper, appropriate and certainly logical to await the completion of the final audit by the Auditor-General before taking any decision on any further action that might be necessary. Having said all that, I should say that I have sought from the Board further information and assurances about its activity in terms of staffing arrangements and what it is doing in respect of the accounting problem to see whether the problem can be overcome more quickly.

page 340

QUESTION

OIL PRICING POLICY

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Government’s oft-professed claim, confirmed here again today, that its oil pricing policy is an energy conservation action and not a revenue raising device. In view of the fact that from this source the Government will receive $450m over the Budget estimate, will it now agree to set aside these funds in an identifiable energy fund to be used for research into and development of alternative energy sources? Further, will the Government ensure that future imposts from price rises will be so set aside?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The honourable gentleman knows full well that the taxes that come from oil do flow through to general revenues. It has been the long-standing policy of all Commonwealth governments, which I would imagine the honourable gentleman has supported, that revenue from one particular source is not predicated for a particular purpose. Rather, the Commonwealth makes judgments about the main areas of priority and allocates funds accordingly. It ought to be noted that considerable additional funds have been allocated in relation to our energy policies to research and development in recent years.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– They are very small.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The honourable gentleman is right in saying that they are small. They are small in relation in particular to the research undertaken in the United States, the United Kingdom or Germany, for example. But in the United States -

Mr Hayden:

– They are much higher per capita in those countries than here.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– If the Leader of the Opposition could refrain from interrupting me or anyone else for one question it would be some relief, not for members of this Parliament, because they know the honourable gentleman, but for those people outside who are listening.

When I was in the United States the President made it perfectly plain that the results of any research that the United States is undertaking in relation to energy matters would be available to us. Therefore, there is no point in Australia’s duplicating work that is being done by countries which have much greater resources than we have. There is point in Australia’s undertaking work that has a particular relevance to Australia’s own circumstances but not in spending money on duplicating what others could do. Indeed, the resources which others devote to research are so large that the work could never be duplicated by other sources. The Government will continue to make judgments about these matters in the light of the broad priorities that it sees. I refer the honourable gentleman also to a statement that the Treasurer made on this very subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Before I call any other honourable member, I indicate to honourable members on my left that the level of sustained interjection periodically is too great. I can understand an odd interjection, but I am not prepared to permit continuous interjection at the level that has been maintained today. I ask honourable members to consult the dignity of the House and not to do that.

– Of course there will be interjections.

Mr SPEAKER:

-This is the final warning for the honourable member for Blaxland. If he continues to speak after I ask him to resume his seat I will name him forthwith.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Fremantle will remain silent. The Standing Orders of this Parliament have existed since Federation. They were copied from the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, which have a history of some hundreds of years. What is occurring in this House today is not unique to us. It has occurred many times in history. On all those occasions in history the Parliament has decided that the rules of debate and the standard of decorum must be maintained. If they are not maintained, the Parliament will collapse. I am sure that that is not the wish of anybody in this House. Therefore, if a statement is challenged and the manner of challenging it is pursuant to the Standing Orders, I will co-operate in allowing the Standing Orders to be used to challenge the statement that is seen as false, but I will not permit honourable members to resort to the use of unparliamentary language which imputes motives to other members of this House or which results in rowdy outbursts. I ask the Parliament to conduct itself with the dignity which the Australian people expect of it. I call upon the Prime Minister to continue his answer. I call upon those members of the Opposition who may disagree with anything which is given in answer to pursue their remedy under the Standing Orders.

page 342

PRIME MINISTER

Notice of Motion

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman wish to raise a point of order?

Mr HAYDEN:

– I wish to pursue the matter under the Standing Orders. I give notice of motion as follows:

That this House condemns the Prime Minister for telling deliberate lies to the Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The notice of motion, having been given under the Standing Orders, will be noted by the Clerk. It is a matter for the Leader of the House or some other Minister to indicate whether the Government accepts the motion for immediate debate or whether it will remain on the Notice Paper. In the meantime I call the Prime Minister.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

- Mr Speaker. I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman must put the motion in writing.

Mr Giles:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I realise that you have not yet had the motion delivered to you, but when you do will you rule on whether the form of words used is in accordance with parliamentary practice and is proper? I would doubt it is.

Mr Hayden having submitted his motion in writing-

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition has moved for the suspension of so much of the Standing Orders as would prevent his moving the Notice of Motion in his name brought before the House this day. The motion brought before the House this day reads:

That this House condemns the Prime Minister for telling deliberate lies to the Parliament.

The motion before the House is for the suspension of Standing Orders. I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HAYDEN:

– It becomes necessary to resort to these procedures to bring this matter before the House. It is intolerable that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), to the eternal humiliation of all Australians, evidences regularly at Question Time in this House a propensity for compulsive lying. No one derives any joy from bringing that point forward.

Mr SPEAKER:

– In that sense I want to demonstrate why the Standing Orders ought to be suspended forthwith.

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

Mr Keating:

– You are not game to hear the quotes which I have here.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat.

Mr Keating:

– I seek leave to have these Press releases incorporated in Hansard. Mr Speaker, they are not prepared -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat. I cannot hear a request for leave while the motion has been moved and not resolved.

Question put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 75

NOES: 32

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-Mr Speaker, I want to-

Motion ( by Mr Viner) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 75

NOES: 32

Majority……. 43

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That Standing Orders be suspended (Mr Hayden’s motion).

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

AYES: 33

NOES: 75

Majority……. 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 346

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 346

QUESTION

SOVIET EXPANSIONISM

Mr SPEAKER:

-The state of the House is that we were hearing an answer by the Prime Minister to a question.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr KEATING:

– Yes, I have been misrepresented grieviously and unashamedly by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr KEATING:

– There are two instances. The first relates to an interview that I had with Mr Ross Gittins of the Sydney Morning Herald, from which the Prime Minister selectively quoted, and other statements that I made in relation to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I would like to put the record straight. The Prime Minister read this question:

That sounds to me as if a resource tax is just a different version of ‘ a branch of the tax office at every petrol pump ‘.

He went on to quote the first sentence of my answer which states:

Well, it is to some extent.

But I went on to say:

But it isn’t to the extent that we are inheriting the present high pricing structure. If we had had our choice, we would not have raised oil up to this price.

We can’t unscramble the Fraser egg.

– The Prime Minister went on to say that I had excused the Russian behaviour in Afghanistan. He quoted from a speech which I gave extemporaneously to a conference in New South Wales. That speech was very selectively quoted in the Press, but even those quotations were accurate. As reported in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 28 January 1980 1 said:

We in the Labor Party disapprove of what Russia is doing in Afghanistan . . .

It is extremely unlikely that they will attack Iran or Pakistan and Australia does not face a military threat.

As reported in the Australian of the same day I said:

Although no country can support the invasion by one nation of another Australia should not be involved in a conflict between two imperial powers . . .

I said even more in condemnatory terms which was not reported. The report in the Australian went on:

It is so far away from our area of interest and Australia is not threatened, so we should leave it to the big powers . . .

That remark was interpolated on the basis that Australia was not in any position to involve itself militarily in that part of the world, that I regarded the Soviet invasion as unforgivable, but that it was not as a result of any expansionist desire to take over other countries. My references to Afghanistan and Pakistan related to the poverty and degradation of those countries and that no other country would want to inherit those problems. I sought to argue the point that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was essentially, from its point of view, a matter which had to do with a border state, Afghanistan, which had been in the Soviet’s orbit. I went on to say that I believed that there was no attempt by the Soviet Union to invade other countries. I make the point that the Office of National Assessments agreed to my approach. That is more than it does with the approach of the Government and, in hindsight, I stand completely vindicated.

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

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GROOM:

Mr SPEAKER:

-He may proceed.

Mr GROOM:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Therefore the honourable gentleman will remain silent in the future and now.

page 353

INTEREST RATES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government’s policies to prevent a rise in interest rates and the damaging effect a rise will have on low and middle income earners repaying home loans and on an unstable housing industry.

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

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

Mr UREN:
Reid

-Let us remind the House of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) during the 1977 election campaign -

Motion ( by Mr Viner) put:

That the business of the day be called on.

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

AYES: 72

NOES: 32

Majority……. 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 353

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I move:

The motion is signed and it will be seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). This is the fourth day of sitting-

Motion ( by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 73

NOES: 32

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is this motion seconded?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I second the motion. The reason that one has to raise this matter today is on the basis of the lack of democracy in this House-

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 73

NOES: 32

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Government is turning this Parliament into a farce by its denial of any rights to the Opposition and the Government’s refusal to debate any of the matters of substance affecting our community. Last week the Government refused to debate a taxation matter. This week it is refusing to debate a housing interest rates matter.

Motion (by Mr Viner) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 73

NOES: 32

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That Standing Orders be suspended (Mr Hurford’s motion).

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 73

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative

page 356

ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 August 1979, on motion by Mr Newman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Before I call the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) I want to refer to a matter which was brought to my attention by the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris). I have forgotten my exact words but I either told him to cease prevaricating or told him not to prevaricate. He has drawn my attention to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. That gives several meanings for the word prevaricate. Principally it gives the meanings: To deviate from the path of duty, to go aside from the right course, method or mode of action. That was my meaning in using the term, as I have already explained to the honourable member for Shortland. He has pointed out to me that there is a meaning derived from the Latin which is used in law, according to the Oxford Dictionary, and which could lead a person about whom the term was used to be offended. I assure the honourable gentleman that that was not my intention. If I use the word in the future it will be in terms of the meaning which I attribute to it; that is, to deviate from the path of duty, as a member, or to go aside from the right course- as a member- method or mode of action.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-It is a pity to find the Parliament in the situation where, over four sitting days, the Government has refused to debate two matters of public importance. I ask the House to bear in mind that the Opposition forwent the first opportunity to discuss a matter of public importance on the first Tuesday after the recess in order to discuss the Afghanistan issue. It is very crude behaviour by the Government and one that it will not prosper in if it continues because the Opposition will use the forms of the House to guarantee that the Opposition’s rights are protected.

I would like to turn to the amendment to the Atomic Energy Act. Once again the Government has found itself in a position where it has had to amend the Atomic Energy Act which was amended twice last year, three times in 1978 and on numerous occasions before that. As with these previous amendments, the Government has again failed to address itself to the fundamental inadequacies of the Atomic Energy Act, inadequacies which have been pointed out by the Opposition on many occasions. This Act was introduced in 1953 for purposes quite different from those for which it is now being used. It was originally drafted at the beginning of the Cold War. It was designed to enable the Australian Government, through the Australian 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 1 950s and the 1 960s was destined for nuclear weapons use.

This legislation is not relevant and is out of date. Therefore, the Government is forced to make numerous piecemeal amendments in an attempt to make it relevant but, of course, this has failed. This pattern of amendments will continue until the Government addresses itself to the inherent problems created by the use of this Atomic Energy Act for the peaceful purpose of mining uranium.

The purpose of the Bill now before the House is to sort out difficulties created when the Atomic Energy Act was amended in 1 978. At that time the Government introduced changes to give the Commonwealth very wide scope to control the mining of uranium and other prescribed substances, as well as operations connected with uranium mining, without regard to the wishes of the States. This amendment led to confusion concerning the Commonwealth’s ability to authorise the mining of uranium.

Under the legislation it may have been possible for the Commonwealth to authorise the undertaking of uranium mining in a State even if this was contrary to State policy, and even though the exploitation of mineral resources is principally a State matter. The Government is seeking now to clarify the difficulties created by this change. At last it has recognised that there may be a Commonwealth-State conflict over such a matter. In amending this Bill the Government makes it clear that Commonwealth authority to mine uranium will be subject to the consent of the State concerned unless authority is given for the purposes only of the defence of the Commonwealth.

Whilst the Opposition is not opposed to this amendment the fact that it has had to be made demonstrates two things: Firstly, the arbitrary nature of the Government to the uranium development issue; and secondly, the inadequacy of the Atomic Energy Act as the legislative basis for uranium mining and development in this country. Other amendments contained in this Bill relate to the penal provisions in the Atomic Energy Act. The Bill seeks to remove two of these provisions. One provision reads: ‘That no action can be taken against the Commonwealth in the event of unlawful arrest, detention, search or seizure’. The second provision reads: ‘That the doing of an act preparatory to the commission of an offence is in itself an offence’. Under this measure, the Commonwealth believes that someone who might be about to create an offence can be charged with the offence itself.

The Opposition fully supports the removal of these provisions but we believe that the amendments do not go far enough. There are many unnecessary repressive and secretive provisions contained in Part IV of the Act which the Government has not sought to remove. About a dozen such provisions still remain. Some of these represent a serious threat to the civil liberties and rights of the Australian population. For instance, under sections 44, 45 and 46 of the Act a person can be prosecuted for various offences without necessarily showing that he or she was guilty of a particular act. He or she may be convicted on the circumstances of the case, on his or her known conduct as proved. The Commonwealth has the power to convict without actually proving him or her guilty. Further, under section 50 a person reasonably suspected of having committed or attempting to commit an offence under other sections of the Act can be detained, searched and arrested without a warrant. These are all carryovers from the days after the Manhattan project in America at the beginning of the Cold War in the 1950s when Australia was about to move into the field of nuclear science.

If this Government is seriously concerned about the infringement of civil rights arising from the penal provisions of the Atomic Energy Act the question has to be asked: Why then has it not taken the opportunity to do something about the provisions? It seeks to remove two of the minor provisions but leaves these excessively repressive provisions in the Act. These provisions follow from the primary purpose of the Act to control defence-related use of uranium. They are not appropriate for an Act which also deals with the commercial exploitation of uranium, lt is possible to paint the scenario that if another substance was prescribed one could have all of these draconian provisions applying, say, to coal mining, tin mining or any other kind of mining within which anyone who even looked as if he were about to commit an offence, or in fact was committing an offence, could be detained. Imagine people working in the coal industry being arrested and being detained without a warrant. These are some of the problems that still remain. The Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry recognised the problems that existed in the Act and objected to the use of the Atomic Energy Act for this reason. In the second report it quite specifically states:

The security provisions of Pan IV of the Atomic Energy Act, some of which seem extreme in the current context, were doubtless enacted with defence considerations in mind. While they remain, public access to information is seriously curtailed.

In his second reading speech the Minister for National Development, (Mr Newman) stated that the remaining penal provisions are being reviewed. This means that further amendments will be necessary. If it is decided that something should be done the Government should have taken this opportunity to do something about these provisions and not introduce yet another amendment to this already savagely amended Act of Parliament. The entire part of the Act is objectionable and should not have been part of the legislation under which uranium exploitation operations are controlled and regulated.

This Bill also seeks to remove section 60 of the Act. This section brings within the provisions of the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act all projects carried out by or on behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission. The amendment restricts the operation of that Act to projects declared by the Minister in a notice published in the Commonwealth Government Gazette as being defence projects and this amendment also is long overdue.

Whilst not opposed to these amendments specifically- in fact the Opposition pointed out all of these inadequacies in 1978 and 1979 in the Bill- the Opposition will not support further amendments to the Atomic Energy Act. We object to the use of this Act which establishes the Australian Atomic Energy Commission as the legislative basis for nuclear energy research and development, for the regulation and control of uranium mining, and for the commercial operations of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. This Act was introduced at a time when there may have been some need to keep Australia’s options open on acquiring nuclear weapons. Cold War fears of atomic espionage were used to justify the severe security provisions of the Act.

This legislation, under which the Atomic Energy Commission still largely performs its functions, is obviously outmoded and outdated. It has become increasingly obvious that the Act cannot be satisfactorily amended. During recent years the many changes have clearly demonstrated this. The Act cannot be amended in a way which will make it acceptable to the Opposition. It is out of date and out of touch with current needs. Further, the Atomic Energy Commission created by this Act should not be allowed to continue to function in its present form. At the moment the Australian Atomic Energy Commission carries out a variety of functions. In the main they are: Nuclear fuel cycle research and development; radio isotope preparation and distribution; regulatory and safety aspects of nuclear operations; de facto source of nuclear energy policy advice; and where necessary nuclear weapons research and advice and a minor amount of non-nuclear energy research. In many cases these functions are conflicting. The one body has the task of promoting nuclear activities and at the same time of regulating them.

For these reasons the Opposition proposes the following amendment to this Bill:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: the Bill be withdrawn and re-drafted, as the House is of the opinion that the Atomic Energy Act is an inappropriate legislative basis for nuclear energy research and development and for commercial activities and should be repealed and replaced by legislation to establish-

1 ) an independent regulatory authority responsible for nuclear-related environmental protection, health, safety, security, safeguards and other nonproliferation activities;

a government corporation to conduct the present commercial activities of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, such as the production and marketing of radioisotopes, and

) a Nuclear Science Authority to perform, as appropriate, the other functions currently undertaken by the Commission.

In moving this amendment the Opposition acknowledges that a committee of the National Energy Research Demonstration and Development Council has recently completed a review of the research activities and capacity of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and has recommended certain changes. However, the terms of reference of this committee were inadequate and, in our opinion, as a result of the recommendations made, do not go far enough. The terms of reference predetermined the result of the review towards the retention of the Atomic Energy Commission in a modified form as a national centre for energy research. They precluded a consideration of alternative forms of national energy research centres. One of the major recommendations of the committee was, in fact, to expand the functions of a revamped commission to emphasise the development of non-nuclear energy technology. I will read recommendation 7 of the committee’s report. It states:

It is recommended that there be two major interacting areas of project responsibility at Lucas Heights, one to be responsible for nuclear research and the other non-nuclear.

The Opposition does not believe that this would be an effective way of promoting non-nuclear energy research. The Atomic Energy Commission ‘s historic and present domination of energy funding is a matter of concern and even though the review committee has recommended decreased funding for nuclear research the Government is yet to act upon this advice. One of the problems about building a research and development agency around the Atomic Energy Commission is that the weight of 25 years of bureaucratic expertise in the nuclear area would probably direct the whole thrust of such an agency towards nuclear related research. For that reason the Opposition suggests that we break up the Commission into separate bodies to carry out those functions currently undertaken. The conflict of interest in the functions and objectives of the Commission cannot lead to any other conclusion. It is responsible for undertaking exploration for and processing of uranium, for constructing and operating nuclear reactors and for performing nuclear energy research. It also has a wide variety of monitoring and regulatory responsibilities associated with nuclear activities. These have included both advisory and executive responsibilities and have covered environment protection, health, safety, security and safeguards.

There are several consequences of this dual responsibility for nuclear regulation and performance. Not least among them is that especially in a period of government financial cutbacks, as is presently the case, competition among different pans of the Commission’s work has resulted in neglect of safety and environmental protection. This became evident again at the end of last year when the Atomic Energy Commission sought approval for funds to spend on security at Lucas Heights because of a warning from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that security was inadequate. Following the expression of public concern over the conflict of interest within the United States Atomic Energy Commission that body was divided in 1974. The regulation and safety aspects of the use of nuclear energy were given to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and nuclear research became the responsibility of the Energy Research and Development Administration. In other words, the Commission was split into two separate parts. In Canada, the United Kingdom and West Germany these functions are also separate. The same should be the case in Australia.

The promotional and regulatory functions of the Commission should be clearly divided. An independent regulatory authority should be established to be responsible for nuclear related environmental protection, health, safety, security, safeguards and other non-proliferation activities. The Opposition also proposes that a government corporation be established to conduct the present commercial activities of the Commission, such as the production of radio isotopes and other activities associated with nuclear medicine. We also propose further divisions to create a nuclear science authority which would do the kind of things that the Atomic Energy Commission has done since its inception. It would be far better to have a nuclear science authority established in its own right than to attempt to submerge the present functions within an energy research and development agency. If one were foolish enough to believe that the aims of such an agency would not be diluted by the force of 25 years of nuclear research and a career structure within the existing Commission, one would be seriously mistaken. We believe there should be a nuclear science authority. Those who committed their careers to this branch of nuclear research when it was something which was viewed by most people as an important scientific endeavour are entitled to maintain their places in the career structure which they have established in the Commission. A nuclear science authority would do that, but it would be separate and distinct from the energy research and development agency function, which we clearly outline. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Uren:

-i second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

– I rise to support the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2). The purpose of this legislation is to provide, among other things, for State consent prior to a Commonwealth authority mining uranium and prescribed substances in that State. It will overcome certain difficulties and doubts which were inherent in the Atomic Energy Act 1953 following amendments which came into force in 1978. I think that the Government is wise to bring in these amendments which become necessary in the atomic energy field from time to time.

As the Atomic Energy Act stands at present the Commonwealth has very wide control over the mining of uranium. In regard to uranium mining, operations in relation to substances that are closely connected are also embraced by the legislation. Great doubt existed whether it would be possible for the Government to authorise or undertake uranium mining without regard to the wishes of a State. Problems arise because of the strategic nature of uranium and other prescribed substances. This makes it very necessary that there should be close government controls. This, of course, does not mean that actual mining operations should be conducted by or on behalf of a government. Circumstances could arise in which there would be a conflict of interests between a State and the Commonwealth. This can be readily recognised by all those who are interested in uranium and operation of the nuclear industry. Development and exploitation of mineral resources generally is a State matter. The Bill makes it clear that Commonwealth authority to mine prescribed substances will be subject to the approval of the State concerned unless ministerial authority is given only for the purposes of the defence of the Commonwealth.

In his second reading speech the then Minister for National Development made it quite clear that the amendment would not apply to the Northern Territory other than to the Ranger development project. In relation to the security provisions of the Atomic Energy Act it is the

Government’s policy that penal provisions, which were largely enacted for defence purposes will not be applied to ordinary commercial undertakings. This was made clear in the debate on the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 1) in 1 978. The Government has decided to examine further the penal provisions of Part IV of the Act having regard to their application to ordinary commercial undertakings, to restrict their operation in accordance with Government policy. The review of the penal provisions is currently under way. However, it has been decided that in the meantime several amendments could be made to the penal provisions.

Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill repeal sections 54 and 58 of the principal Act which provide respectively that no action can be taken against the Commonwealth in the event of unlawful arrest, detention, search or seizure and that the doing of an act preparatory to the commission of an offence is, in itself, an offence. Clause 6 repeals section 60 of the principal Act, which applies the stringent provisions of” the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act 1947 to all works of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, including commercial undertakings. The clause substitutes a provision which requires that a notice be published in the Australian Government Gazette by the Minister if the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act is to apply to a work of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The amendments provided for in the Bill were formulated following receipt of a number of representations from the various State governments in Australia and from other parties who are interested in the development of uranium. They do not affect in any way the powers provided by the Atomic Energy Act 1978 enabling the Commonwealth to implement nuclear non-proliferation safeguards in Australia pursuant to the Government’s international obligations.

The Opposition is dead set on eliminating the Atomic Energy Commission- this was made quite clear in the debate on 9 May 1978- and is apparently keen to set up a nuclear commission in its place. We should be mining, milling and marketing the yellowcake we produce in Australia. Unfortunately, it seems to me that members on the opposite side of the House are intent on doing all they can to stop this nuclear industry getting under way. Australia is a fortunate country in that it has 25 per cent of the world ‘s known yellowcake, and possibly many more fields of yellowcake in Australia are yet to be discovered. Yellowcake in its present form is not dangerous when it is mined and we have markets for it all over the world- in the United

States, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, South Africa, Japan, France, and many other countries. We should be taking advantage of this market or it will pass us by as the years go on and this would be dangerous economically for Australia.

With the shortage of petroleum products in this country it is quite evident that as time goes on we will need to import huge quantities of petroleum products from overseas, and this could give us a very adverse balance of trade. However, the mining, milling and marketing of our yellowcake would provide us with a source of income which would take care of the imbalance that would be created by such action. We are a fortunate country in this regard, and in the foreseeable future we have no need to construct a nuclear reactor. This could be attempted in the years that lie ahead, but at the present time all we have to do is get on with the joh of exporting our uranium. It is pleasing to see that Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd at Mount Isa is already doing this. At present it is the only exporter in this country. The Opposition seems to be intent on stopping the country from taking this action, and it is very difficult to understand why it is adopting this attitude. As I have said, mining, milling and marketing of uranium is already under way at Mary Kathleen in Queensland. Let us hope that in the very near future other enterprises will get under way and bring export income into this country.

Certainly, when yellowcake is mixed with chemicals it becomes dangerous, and it is used in atomic power stations throughout the world. Let us consider the safety features of the nuclear industry. The American Navy has been nuclear powered for some 23 years but there has not been one incident or one life lost. There are atomic power stations in Great Britain and America, and in those countries atomic power is providing 1 5 per cent of the nation ‘s needs. Last year it was a privilege for me to travel to Japan and to see the atomic power station at Yokohama Bay. On the day we were there the spent fuel was being taken out of the reactor and replaced by new fuel. Atomic power in Japan is providing about 1 5 per cent to 20 per cent of the power needed in that country. It was interesting to note that the spent fuel was being placed in cylinders and sent to Great Britain for treatment. We then visited South Korea, where the development in the nuclear power industry was a revelation. There are two very big nuclear power stations there, and we saw two further Westinghouse power stations under construction adjacent to them.

We are in the nuclear age, whether we like it or not, and we should be taking advantage of it. We know that last year there were problems at Harrisburg in the United States, and great concern was expressed about them. However, I think the extent of nuclear knowhow became apparent when the technicians were able to avert any fatalities or serious results. There is no doubt that the technical knowhow in this field today is absolutely first-class. Let us get on with the job of mining our yellowcake and exporting it for the economic benefit of Australia. It is a pleasure for me to support this Bill. One does not mind amendments being made to Acts when they are beneficial amendments. I believe that the amendments to which I referred in my opening remarks will be beneficial to the industry and to Australia as a whole. I support the legislation and oppose the amendment that has been moved by the Opposition.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I second the amendment moved by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating). Firstly, I want briefly to reply to the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O’Keefe) who talked about the great economic benefits that will derive from Australia’s involvement in the uranium mining industry. I challenge Government members and the Government itself to bring forward any information at all on the so-called economic benefits. I placed a question on notice to the Treasurer (Mr Howard) seeking any information on the long-term and short-term economic benefits to Australia of the uranium mining industry. The Government failed to make that information available because it does not know the answer. The truth is that the Government has entered into only one contract since it has been in office, and that contract is with the South Korean Government. Of course, we know about the stability of the South Korean Government. We know that since this Government entered into that arrangement the President of South Korea has been assassinated. This Government has an appalling record of entering into arrangements with governments with very questionable backgrounds. We hope it will consider the whole basis of the delicate problem of the uranium mining industry.

This Bill is related to the uranium mining industry, which is interrelated with the nuclear power industry, which in turn is related to nuclear weapons and nuclear war. The report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry- the Fox report- states in its third recommendation that the nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war. The report went on to say that this is the most serious hazard of all. This Bill is another example of the Government ‘s failure to consider the real issues associated with the mining and export of uranium and the nuclear fuel cycle. It does nothing to resolve the many serious problems of uranium mining and nuclear power. These problems are at the core of the widespread concern in the Australian community about uranium mining.

Problems such as the disposal of nuclear waste, the proliferation of nuclear weapons- I will say more about that later- the impact of mining on the delicate environment of the beautiful Alligator Rivers region and the Kakadu National Park area, which is where the Ranger uranium mine is situated, and the economic effects of large-scale uranium mining development, which were so lightly touched on by the honourable member for Paterson, have not been resolved by this Bill, other Bills or statements on uranium that the Government has put before this Parliament. The issue that this Bill pretends to be concerned with- the question of civil liberties- is largely a whitewash.

This Bill does very little at all to remove the repressive cold war measures of the Atomic Energy Act. Let us look at the history of that Act. It was introduced in 1953 at a time when the cold war mentality was at its worst. The Act was introduced because we were mining uranium at Rum Jungle in the Northern Territory and supplying that uranium to both the United States and Great Britain to build atomic weapons. That is why the original legislation was introduced. The debate on the matter at that time was appalling. It was of no credit to any member of the Parliament, Labor or Liberal. Because of the cold war mentality that was sweeping the country at that time, even Labor men were looking under their beds in fright. The Parliament played a disgusting role at that time. We do not want to see any more the failures to address the question of civil liberties. We do not want to see McCarthyism; we do not want to see Santamariaism. We do not want to see those fears ever again in this country. We want more freedom; we want more rights; we want more equality; we want more justice in our society. Because of this Government’s decision, the Atomic Energy Act will apply only to commercial mining at Ranger and not to defence mining, as the original Atomic Energy Act provided.

Let us examine the provisions of the Bill. The Federal Government’s authority to authorise uranium mining in a State is confined by clause 3 to the defence powers. It removes some of the powers which were introduced less than two years ago and which drew strong opposition from the State governments, including Liberal and National Party State governments. One can only conclude that this part of the Bill would not have been necessary had the Government bothered to consult the States before it introduced its package of uranium legislation. But the Government, in its insensitive rush to push through the legislation and clear the path for the uranium mining companies, did not even do that. The Prime Minister at that time gave the then Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, assurances that consultation would take place, but it failed to take place. The rest of the Bill relates to the draconian security provisions of the Atomic Energy Act. Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill repeal sections 54 and 58 of the original Act. These sections are a denial of any sense of natural justice and should be repealed. But the Bill leaves untouched the other 13 sections of Part IV of the Act, all of which raise serious concerns about secrecy, industrial rights and civil liberties. Clause 6 of the Bill requires that if the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act, certain provisions of which interrelate with this Act, is to be applied to any works of the Atomic Energy Commission, this must be gazetted by the Minister. Because of the Government’s sale of the Ranger project, this Act no longer applies to Ranger. But the Bill in no way diminishes the Government’s ability to use these defence powers, whether it be in industrial disputes involving the Atomic Energy Commission or against those who speak out against the activities of the Atomic Energy Commission. There are many other circumstances which have nothing to do with defence where such power could be used.

The Bill fails to make any changes to the whole armoury of restrictive cold war provisions which make up so much of the rest of the Atomic Energy Act. I have already talked about the cold war mentality that prevailed during the year in which the Act was introduced. For example, under section 43 of the Act, workers can be fined $ 1 ,000 or imprisoned for six months for obstruction or hindrance of the Ranger project. A strike or other industrial action could be interpreted as an obstruction or hindrance. This section remains unamended. Under section 47 of the Actthe section which I believe is the most repressive of all- a person can be found guilty on the basis of his known character. This section contravenes a person’s basic right under British law- I put those words in inverted commas- to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Under this legislation, that right is thrown out the door. A person can be found guilty because of his known character. What sort of justice is that? Under section 50 of the Act, any person suspected of tampering or interfering with any property associated with the Ranger project can be detained, searched and arrested without warrant. If convicted, that person would be liable to seven years gaol. The Government has chosen not to repeal or amend this section of the Act.

Probably the most disturbing feature of the Government’s use of the Act at Ranger is the power it provides to restrict information in order to maintain secrecy. The Government always says: ‘Let us trust the experts’. That is the Government’s whole argument. Of course the experts are so wrong. One has only to read the first Fox report to find out what the Commissioners had to say in respect of those so-called experts. The Commissioners were not very respectful at all of these so-called experts. The Commissioners said that the evidence of these experts could not stand up to any real crossexamination. But the Government still says: Let’s trust the experts’. People trusted the experts in the Three Mile Island incident and look at the problems involved there. We cannot trust the experts because so many things in relation to the nuclear power industry- an industry interrelated with nuclear war- are unresolved. We cannot divorce one from the other. An article in today’s Age newspaper deals with plutonium which is part of the waste at nuclear power stations. The article makes the point that the moving of plutonium into the weapons industry cannot be stopped if countries are intent on moving into that section.

Under the Atomic Energy Act contractors and any other members of the public can be prosecuted for communicating or acquiring restricted information. The penalty is seven years imprisonment. These powers are still in the Atomic Energy Act and apply to the Ranger project. The second report of the Ranger inquiry about which I spoke earlier in commenting on these provisions stated:

While they remain, public access to information is seriously curtailed.

The Minister claimed in his second reading speech that the Government’s policy is not to apply penal provisions which were enacted for defence purposes to a commercial undertaking, and that they are now under review. But I ask again, are they under review? We have now been dealing with this legislation for more than three years. How long must we give the Government to review the situation? I believe that this Bill is just a sop to offset the criticisms that have been levelled at the Government. Two and a half years have passed since I drew attention to the implications of the use of the Atomic Energy Act at Ranger for civil liberties and industrial rights. If the Government’s intentions are as the Minister has stated, why has it not taken an earlier opportunity to remove these powers from the Atomic Energy Act? Clearly, that is not the Government’s intention. I repeat that this Bill is nothing but a sop to the widespread criticism that has been levelled at the Government for its use of the Atomic Energy Act. In fact, the whole thrust of the Government’s legislative program has been the introduction of repressive and restrictive laws such as the Atomic Energy Act. I refer not merely to this Act in isolation and to the actions of this Federal Government, but also to the actions of State conservative governments.

We have only to look at the amending legislation on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and, recently, to the amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to see what a low priority this Government gives to civil liberties and the long-held industrial rights struggle of the workers of this country. It has no respect for civil liberties or the rights of individuals. In fact, in this era through which we are passing more and more pressure will be brought to bear to put on the statute books legislation to intimidate workers against taking action. The whole attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) during Question Time illustrated that. He attempted to interpret in his own way what members of the Opposition had said. He referred to the criticism of the Soviet Union by Opposition members but said that because they had examined other aspects in their speeches they had done so with the certain purposes of softening their criticism of the Soviet Union. He was trying to interpret their meaning.

What faith, what respect, can one have for a government with a Prime Minister who interprets things in that way? This is why I am asking the people to give deeper thought to these repressive laws and oppose them. In this day and age we should not be intimidated. We should not be frightened by intimidatory laws. We should have the courage to stand up and take action where necessary to make sure that these repressive laws are removed from the statute books. A clear policy of the Fraser Government has been to introduce new draconian powers for use against those progressive forces in the community which have resisted its policy. They are an integral part of the Fraser Government’s strategy for achieving a massive transfer of wealth and power in Australian society from ordinary people to the corporate sector, a major part of which is owned by foreign interests, and which the Fraser Government really represents. I know that there are men of good will on the Government side. I am not trying to brand them all in the same way, but one must have a greater understanding of what is happening. The truth is that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a Country Party representative, can see that more and more power is being given to overseas and city-based corporations, and the small people have very little power indeed. That is the real strength of this Government.

The Atomic Energy Act is inappropriate, not only as a basis for uranium mining at Ranger but also for the other scientific, industrial and commercial functions of the Atomic Energy Commission, which have nothing to do with defence at all. The restrictions on the free flow of information, and on criticism of the Commission, have for too long allowed a small entrenched elite at Lucas Heights to wield unchallenged power over a very large slice of the nation’s research funds. They have escaped the scrutiny and peer group criticism that are normally associated with scientific research.

The Atomic Energy Act is a product of the McCarthy period, to which I referred earlier. Repressive and restrictive measures permeate its every facet. If the Government were serious about not using its penal provision, it would not have to use the Act in respect of the Ranger project. It would repeal and redraft the legislation on mining in that area. I believe that after 1 980, this Government having been defeated, that project will never be proceeded with. That has been set out clearly in Labor Party policy.

I have said that the Atomic Energy Act can be used to restrict information on the operations of the Ranger project. A vital area in which we can be sure these powers will be used is that of the health of workers, and of the Aboriginal people who take their food and water from the Magela creek system. This is the sad situation in that area. Because of the delicate environment, I feel that more and more information concerning what is going on will be restricted. We can be sure that, when there is a conflict between the commercial interests of mining companies and the interests of health, information will be suppressed under this Government.

Several years ago documents were leaked from Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd and

Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd which showed that they were determined to deny workers any but the scantest details concerning exposure to radiation at the Mary Kathleen uranium mine. It was an internal memo which instructed doctors and other staff to keep the information from the worker. The company was afraid that it would be used in the years ahead by workers who had contracted radiation-related diseases to support claims for compensation. It was afraid that the public would become aware of the hazards associated with uranium mining. The provisions of the Atomic Energy Act which cover Ranger, and of the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act, which applies to all uranium mines, ensure that that sort of practice can continue. Only last August, in reply to a request from a member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly for information on radiation levels at Nabarlek, the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy stated:

The information which you request cannot be released without the express permission of the company concerned.

That is the attitude of Government parties to the right of the public and of workers to have access to vital information which affects health. I believe that the Bill is so bad that even though our amendments might make some progress towards improving it, at the third reading stage we should and will oppose it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the question be now put.

NOES: 32

Majority…… 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 68

NOES: 32

Majority…… 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 68

NOES: 32

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion ( by Mr John McLeay ) put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 68

NOES: 32

Majority……. 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 366

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That consideration of Government Business, Orders of the Day Nos 3 and 4, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-This is a fair example of the way in which the Government runs this place. It cannot even bring out an agenda paper for the Parliament that will last more than a few hours. This afternoon we have seen the Parliament abused, traduced, spoilt and sabotaged by the way in which the Government operates to suppress the voices from this side of the House. The fact that it has to amend a Notice Paper within two or three hours of bringing it out just shows the way it runs the country.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

-I oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Viner) to postpone consideration of Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 3 and 4 to a later hour this day. It is quite obvious that what the Government intends to do at 8 o ‘cock tonightprime listening time- is to belt the communist can once again. It is playing politics on this issue. It is trying to line up the Australian Labor Party -

Mr Cotter:

– Do you want to go soft on them?

Mr MARTIN:

– I am not going soft on them. One could not get anyone who is more anticommunist than I am and I am proud of it.

Mr Bourchier:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The subject of the debate tonight is a statement by the honourable member for Prospect, who does not happen to come from this side of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Mr MARTIN:

- Mr Deputy Speaker. I still maintain that what I said earlier is true. This is a another snide move by the Government to belt the communist can. I am opposed to this. I am opposed to the postponement of the consideration of the important legislation which is listed on the Notice Paper- the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Amendment Bill. They are important pieces of legislation. At 8 o’clock tonight the communist can will be belted once again for political machinery purposes. I oppose this motion.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The matter to be dealt with at 8 o’clock will be raised by the honourable member for Prospect, who is a Labor member.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

Mr MARTIN:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I stated that I opposed the motion which was moved by the Leader of the House, Mr Viner. He moved that Orders of the Day Nos 3 and 4 be postponed until a later hour this day. Orders of the Day Nos 3 and 4 were two Bills which were set down on the Business Paper to be discussed by this House. They were the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Amendment Bill. What the Government is seeking to do- I oppose this- is to defer discussions on those Bills until some later time, if not this day then maybe tomorrow, depending upon how long it is prepared to allow this other debate, which it wants to bring on, to run. I severely criticise the Government for its timid attempt, if I can call it that, to play politics in a large way in an attempt to discredit the Australian Labor Party which is the Opposition in this House.

Let us look at what happened in this House today. A matter of public importance was brought on by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). The subject of the urgency motion was to discuss a matter of great importance to the people of Australia; that is, the failure of the Government’s policies to prevent a rise in interest rates and the damaging effect a rise will have on low and middle income earners repaying home loans and on an unstable housing industry. What more important subject could we have for discussion in this House than a matter which will affect the ordinary people of Australia who are facing that real possibility of an increase in their housing repayments? It is fairly clear cut that there will be an increase in housing loan interest. Today the Government refused to allow this motion to be discussed. Why did it do that? What does it fear in having a motion discussed which will highlight the failures of the Government in the realm of housing loan interest rates and the real possibility of the hardship that will be incurred?

I am speaking on principle on this issue. I am speaking as a person who values principle before politics- to be quite blunt about it- and I have suffered for it. I do not mind suffering for putting principle before politics because I refuse to play party politics per se. The principle of the issue that we are discussing here tonight is looking at the motive of the Government in pulling out notice No. 1 12 which is a motion moved by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). Quite frankly I agree with the terms of the motion. What is the motive of the Government in deciding to allow the motion to be discussed, which was moved by an Australian Labor Party member, and then joining with it a report of the Sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Human Rights in the Soviet Union? What is the motive of the Government in suddenly bringing out of the hat notice No. 1 12 on the General Business Notice Paper? The honourable member for Prospect, who is one of my colleagues and a very good member of this Parliament- a man whom I intensely admire- gave notice of it only on 19 February 1980. What is the motive of the Government?

The Government controls the business of this House. The Opposition does not control the business of the House; the Government controls it. What is the motive of the Government in suddenly deciding that it will allow the motion moved by the honourable member for Prospect to be discussed? He gave notice of his intention only on 19 February 1980. Notice of the first Notice of Motion, which was moved by a Liberal Party member, was given on 28 February 1978. Has the Government suddenly become magnanimous and bighearted in wanting to help the Labor Party, the Opposition? That is certainly not so on its form that I have seen in the 10 years that I have been a member of this Parliament and certainly not on its form that I have seen even as late as today.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They are phoneys.

Mr MARTIN:

– The honourable member for Grayndler said: ‘They are phoneys’. They are phoneys. Let us look at this situation realistically. We had a shambles at Question Time today. The shambles was caused by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) saying that members of the Australian Labor Party were apologists for the Soviet Union. I did not take exception to that because there was such a shemozzle going on in this House today at Question Time that the time was not opportune. But I take exception now to the suggestion that the members of the Labor Party are apologists for the Soviet Union’s invasion- I call it invasion- of Afghanistan. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say that members of the Australian Labor Party are apologists for the Soviet Union. We roundly condemned the Soviet Union last week. It was decided purely by numbers as to which motion went through in this House.

I doubt the sincerity of the Government in allowing this motion of the honourable member for Prospect to come up for discussion tonight except for one reason. The Government will attempt to belt the guts out of the Australian Labor Party and say once again, as the Prime Minister said today, that the Australian Labor Party is an apologist for the actions of the Soviet Union. The Government and the combaters on the other side will attempt- mark my wordsduring this debate tonight to create the impression in the minds of the people of Australia that the Australian Labor Party is just an offshoot of the Communist Party. We will have the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) getting up in high dudgeon. He is the greatest combater that we have in this Parliament. He has not been into the House yet but if and when he does come in, if he is allowed to speak, mark my words, the tripe and cant will pour from his lips. I hesitate to say that we, as an Opposition, have fallen into a trap on this matter, but I have the feeling at the back of my mind that, to a certain extent, we will fall into the trap set by the Government even by granting leave for this matter to come on for debate tonight.

I have no truck with the Soviet Union and the way in which it treats its people in its own country or in the other countries which it has invaded such as Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the southern states of Africa and now Afghanistan. I have no truck with what it has done in Africa. Let us- I say this to people on my own side of the Parliament- not fall into the trap of allowing the Government to try to make political capital out of something which should be beyond politics. The way in which the Soviet

Government treats its own people should be beyond pure party politics. Why is the Government allowing it? Is the Government allowing it because it is in trouble? It is in trouble in this country as was shown in Western Australia last Saturday and as was shown in the seat of Castlereagh in New South Wales last Saturday. The Government is in trouble and it is trying to create a diversion. I well remember the great big red arrows on maps, particularly appearing in the Queensland Press in the 1960s and in recent times at the last election showing the path of the Corns coming down to invade Australia. Unfortunately gullible people believe that this is a fact. It is poppycock. It has been used by the Liberal Party from time immemorial. It got Menzies in and it kept Menzies in.

The Prime Minister realises that people are gullible. Unfortunately there are gullible people in this country otherwise we would not have a Liberal-National Country Party in government now. They must be gullible for putting those parties in Government. I counsel caution on allowing the Government an opportunity once again to pour the bucket on the Australian Labor Party. I take exception to what the Government is doing. Honourable members should mark my words when I say that the Government will allow this debate to proceed tonight for as long as it can make political capital out of it. It will then drop it like a hot cake. I oppose the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 368

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Mr Fife)- by leave- agreed to:

That so much or the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent-

Notice No. 112, General Business, being called on and moved forthwith;

the scope of the debate on General Business Notice No. 1 1 2 being extended to cover the subject matter of Order of the Day No.5, Government Business; and

separate questions being put on each of the motions at the conclusion of the debate.

page 368

QUESTION

HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE SOVIET UNION

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-I move:

At this stage it is important to point out that the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar), who will be following me in this debate, will be moving two amendments. The Opposition is- or at least I am- in agreement with those amendments, which read:

Omit paragraph (1) substitute the following paragraph:
views with grave concern the continuing policies of the Government of the USSR which deprive its citizens of basic human rights including rights to freedom of emigration, to freedom of religion, to freedom of information, to freedom of speech and to freedom of political and trade union organisation; ‘.
Omit paragraph (5) substitute the following paragraph:
strongly believes that every effort should be made to continue to bring home to the Soviet Government the belief of other nations that human rights should be respected, including the rights of minorities such as the Jews, and the rights of political dissidents to express their views and requests the Government to transmit this resolution to the Government of the USSR’.

I have some reservations about the final amendment and will make my position clear during the debate. Firstly, let me emphasise that the Soviet Union is not the only country in the world which interferes with human rights. Deplorably, there are a large number of countries which interfere with human rights. In fact, there are relatively few countries in the world which do not significantly interfere with human rights. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, of which I was a member, which investigated human rights in the Soviet Union, addressed itself to that particular point. It is an important point and I would like to read into Hansard the following points made by that Committee:

It is important that Australians should be made aware of the treatment by the ‘Superpowers’ of their own citizens, because it would surely follow that any government is unlikely to treat citizens of another country better than its own citizens. Therefore, in order that Australia may pursue an intelligent foreign policy, it is necessary for its Parliament to have some awareness of the behaviour of the governments of those countries with which Australia has to deal. Above all, the survival of the international order is most dependent on the ‘Superpowers’. Insofar as human rights should be a critical part of such an international order, the role of the ‘Superpowers’ in relation to human rights is an essential matter for examination.

A second reason justifying this inquiry is that the Soviet Union is not merely a ‘Superpower’ but is also a leading nation within a group of countries embracing a large part of the earth’s area, and the earth’s population, which presents an ideological system which, its adherents believe, should be adopted by the other peoples of the world. It must surely be helpful, in assessing such an ideological system, to look at what have been the consequences of that system in the country which was the first to adopt it and which is the leading country advocating that system.

A third reason is to be found in the signing of the final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe at Helsinki in 1975.

There the important point is made that whilst we are not signatories to that agreement- we are not invited, not being a European community- in that statement good relations between countries were linked with the observance of internationally agreed principles on human rights. In fact, the Soviet Union itself quoted the Helsinki Agreement when it has criticised various Western signatories to the Agreement for alleged violations of human rights. The Committee agreed that the human rights provisions in the Helsinki Agreement are important and that their observance by the major signatory countries is a matter of concern to the Australian Parliament.

While I am dealing with the Soviet Union and that report important points emerge as to why I have concentrated on Andrei Sakharov and other dissidents in this motion. At the same time I wish to emphasise a point I made the other day that there is a fair bit of hypocrisy on the part of the Government. I do not have the fear expressed by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) that somehow or other attacks on the Soviet Union are attacks on the Labor Party. To my mind this should not be so. Let me emphasise that the first people who are eliminated in countries taken over by the Soviet Union are not the so-called capitalists but the social democrats and the democratic socialists in those countries. They are the first people to be eliminated.

It is a claim of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that it overthrew the czars. Obviously that is not true. It overthrew the Kerensky Government, one of the first social democratic governments which existed in the Soviet Union. It was the Kerensky Government or the people supporting that government, which overthrew the dictatorship of the czars. It was a relatively democratic country- I stress ‘relatively’ obviously- as we are talking about a war situation when the Soviet Communist Party came to power at the end of the war.

Let me deal with the hypocrisy of the Government. The Government talks a lot about the Soviet Union. It does very little about the Soviet Union. The most shameful act that has ever been perpetrated by any government in this country was in 1978 when the Soviet Union informed our embassy in Moscow that it had invited a parliamentary delegation from Australia, but that no member of the sub-committee dealing with human rights in the Soviet Union was able to participate in that delegation. This Government, to its everlasting shame, did not tell this Parliament. As it happened, the people who were elected by both sides of the Parliament to go in that delegation did not know anything about the restrictions placed on the membership by the Soviet Union. The delegation did not include any members of this sub-committee. It is a very great pity and it is to the Government’s everlasting shame that, by not telling the Australian Parliament, it played into the hands of the Soviet Union by allowing it to dictate who should be the members of a parliamentary delegation to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr Jacobi:

– It is disgraceful.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– As the honourable member for Hawker pointed out, it is disgraceful. I hope the people on the other side of the House agree. The next point I make is in relation to what is happening at present. I think many of us from both sides of the House who are reasonably minded agree that the Soviet Union is a very severe threat to the free world. It is a country which appears to have imperialist ambitions. I will deal with that in a minute. Most importantly, there has to be some sort of united opposition to the extension of its power. The Prime Minister par excellence is trying to play what is happening at the present time according to straight out party politics. I think he should be condemned, not only by people on our side of the political fence in Australia, but also by people on the other side of the political fence who are concerned about what is happening in Afghanistan and all over the world where the Soviet Union has exhibited its aggressive intentions.

Today the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in answer to a question- I cannot recall who asked the question- started to answer perfectly correctly. He said that he was pleased that a resolution on Afghanistan was finally passed last week unanimously by both Houses of this Parliament. We had some reservations about one particular sentence in that resolution as members of this House will recall, but we did not oppose the final resolution. He agreed that we all condemned the Soviet Union in the terms laid down by this Government and, having said that, he immediately went on to say that the people on this side were apologists for the USSR. I think that is a ridiculous proposition. How can one say we are apologists for the USSR if we unanimously support a resolution condemning the Soviet Union which the Government has put up?

Mr Baillieu:

– There was no division.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– There was no division because there was no opposition to the resolution. The only opposition to the resolution was on the question of whether this incident was the gravest threat to world peace since the Second World War. People who have followed foreign affairs, who remember the Cuban crisis, the blockade of Berlin and other episodes in the last 30-odd years will probably agree with me that it is not the gravest threat. That is a point on which we can disagree. It is not relevant to the suggestion that we are apologists for the USSR. One does not have to believe that every move of the Soviet Union will immediately lead to world war. I do not think there is very much we can say about Sakharov. I think all members of this House will agree with the general terms of the resolution, whilst some people may have some quibbles on particular points. I point out to members of this House some aspects of the Soviet Union ‘s criminal law. I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard article 70 and article 190/ 1 of the Soviet criminal law which is part of annex D of the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence.

Leave granted.

The articles read as follows-

Article 70: Anti-Soviet Agitation and Propaganda

Agitation or propaganda carried on for the purpose of subverting or weakening the Soviet regime or of committing particular, especially dangerous crimes against the state, or the circulation, for the same purpose, of slanderous fabrications which defame the Soviet state and social system, or the circulation or preparation or keeping, for the same purpose, of literature of such content, shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of 6 months to 7 years, with or without additional exile for a term of 2 to 5 years, or by exile for a term of 2 to 5 years.

The same actions committed by a person previously convicted of especially dangerous crimes against the state or committed in wartime shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of 3 to 10 years, with or without additional exile fora term of 2 to 5 years.

Article 190-1: Circulation of Fabrication known to be False which Defame Soviet State and Social System

The systematic circulation in an oral form of fabrications known to be false which defame the Soviet state and social system and, likewise, the preparation or circulation in written, printed or any other form of works of such content shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term not exceeding 3 years, or by correctional tasks for a term not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding 100 roubles.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I thank the House. Article 70 reads:

Agitation or propaganda carried on for the purpose of subverting or weakening the Soviet regime or of committing particular, especially dangerous crimes against the state, or the circulation, for the same purpose, of slanderous fabrications which defame the Soviet state and social system, or the circulation or preparation or keeping, for the same purpose, of literature of such content, shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of 6 months to 7 years, with or without additional exile for a term of 2 to 5 years, or by exile for a term of 2 to 5 years.

I emphasise the word ‘or’ throughout the article. A person does not have to do all the things but any one of those things; slanderous fabrications, defamation of the Soviet State and social system, or the circulation or preparation or keeping of literature are sufficient to break that law.

Article 190 reads:

The systematic circulation in an oral form of fabrications known to be false which defame the Soviet state and social system and, likewise, the preparation or circulation in written, printed or any other form of works of such content shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term not exceeding 3 years, or by correctional tasks for a term not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding 100 roubles.

None of us would support that sort of legislation in our political system in our State but, at the same time, it is important to realise- I came to realise it more when I was sitting on that subcommitteethat even the KGB in the USSR has become bureaucratised and more legalistic. I think that is an important point and a good point. When we were interviewing and hearing evidence from people who had, in fact, been condemned and convicted in Soviet courts, who had finally left the Soviet Union and who obviously were not friendly to the Soviet Union, they again and again pointed out to us that it is important to know what one is doing, to know the criminal law. In the last 10, 15 or 20 years in the Soviet Union from that point of view conditions have improved. In other words, the Government is trying to frame people. I think it probably in some cases still gets convictions when, in fact, the person is innocent. One of the important points relevant to the Sakharov case is that he has not been charged at all. No charge has been laid against him and no trial has been held. He was banished to a city some 400 kilometres from Moscow. That is one of the important points. In the Soviet Union before the Second World War that person would have finished up in a concentration camp or would have been executed.

Only recently I re-read a Soviet publicationthe Hansard, so to speak- of the trial notes of what were called Trotskyites and counterrevolutionaries in the late 1930s. I would recommend those trial notes to people who are interested in civil liberties and in what happens in the Soviet Union. Things have changed for the better since then, but it is important that we continue to exert pressure on the Soviet Union to improve things. That is the most important point. All the dissidents keep on reminding us that we have to exert pressure on the Soviet Union to help dissidents. If we forget about them they finish up in gaol, or worse. We have to keep on giving publicity to the matter.

A significant point in dealing with the Soviet Union- it is a point we made in our report in a round about sort of way- is that the USSR can be, and to my mind is, an aggressive and imperialist country because it is totalitarian. It is an important point that totalitarian countries can get away with aggression and imperialism much more easily than democratic countries can. I made the point the other day that there is a significant difference- quite apart from what other reservations we have- between what the US did in Vietnam and what the USSR is doing in Afghanistan. One of the most important points is that the United States of America could not get away with the sorts of things it was doing in Vietnam because every night pictures of what was happening were shown on television. Every night there were discussions about it. People who opposed the USA ‘s involvement were able to get access to radio, televisions and newspapers and to argue the point. Finally they got the support of the majority and they certainly divided the United States people.

None of this can happen to the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is silly for people who say the Soviet Union is dragging itself into the same sort of morass that the United States dragged itself into in Vietnam because the Soviet people will probably- if the Soviet Government does not want them to- never be aware what is happening in Afghanistan. The Soviet people will hear odd references to it when they listen to the British Broadcasting Commission or Radio Free Europe or whatever, but they will not know otherwise. The important point as far as we are concerned as individuals and speaking for myself as internationalists is that if we can bring about democracy in Russia it will help not only the Russian people but also the people of the constituent republics, whether in the Baltic states or in the more willing constituent states of the USSR, and it will help the rest of the world. A democratic country would not be able to start an aggressive war without having some sort of discussion in its newspapers and in the media in general.

In the time I have left I should like to refer to one sentence in the amendment that has been foreshadowed. The Opposition will not divide on the amendment, but at the same time I disagree with it and I know that the honourable member for Hawker, who served on the Wheeldon committee with me, also disagrees with it. I refer to the emphasis on the word ‘Jews’ in the phrase including the rights of minorities such as the Jews’. The Jews have been discriminated against in the Soviet Union.

Mr Jacobi:

– A lot of other minorities have, too.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– There are a hell of a lot of other minorities, as the honourable member for Hawker has pointed out. If we looked at the matter impartially we would know that, of all the minority groups, the Jews have done relatively well in the Soviet Union because of the support they have received from people outside. There are many other minority groups who have done far worse than the Jews. I am not suggesting for one minute that Jews are not being maltreated, are not being discriminated against in the Soviet Union, but I think it is silly for us to emphasise the position of the Jews there. People who embrace the Baptist faith or are members of other religious or national minority groups in the Soviet Union have suffered much more because they have had far less publicity and far less help from countries outside the Soviet Union. I hope that the rest of the debate tonight will deal with some of the recommendations in this report on human rights in the Soviet Union. They are important recommendations.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is there a seconder to the motion?

Mr Jacobi:

– It is with pleasure that I second the motion so ably put by the honourable member for Prospect and reserve my right to speak.

Mr MacKELLAR:
Minister for Health and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs · Warringah · LP

– I wish to move two amendments to the motion moved by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). not because I disagree with the motion but because the Government does not think that it goes quite far enough. I seek leave to move the two amendments together.

Leave granted.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I move:

1 ) Omit paragraph ( 1 ), substitute the following paragraph:
) views with grave concern the continuing policies of the Government of the USSR which deprives its citizens of basic human rights including rights to freedom of emigration, to freedom of religion, to freedom of information, to freedom of speech and to freedom of political and trade union organisation;.
Omit paragraph (5), substitute the following paragraph:
strongly believes that every effort should be made to continue to bring home to the Soviet Government the belief of other nations that human rights should be respected, including the rights of minorities such as the Jews, and the rights of political dissidents to express their views and requests the Government to transmit this resolution to the Government of the USSR.

The Government welcomes the opportunity afforded by this debate to examine the general question. (Quorum formed). As I was saying, I should like to begin by commending the members of the Sub-committee on Human Rights in the Soviet Union, a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, for the thoroughness and clearsightedness of their report. I should also like to point out that the sub-committee was made up of both Government and Opposition members. The report is not a party political document. It presents a graphic picture of the systematic abuse of the basic human rights of sections of Soviet society and stands as an indictment of the Russian authorities. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic’s invasion of Afghanistan and the attempted subjugation of that country’s people fully supports the report’s observations. The report clearly demonstrates the abuse of human rights that have occurred and continue to occur in the USSR. It demonstrates that systematic and deliberate violations of human rights occur as a matter of course in the Soviet Union. The report’s recommendations are under active consideration by the Government, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) will report to Parliament on them in due course.

As with the speaker who preceded me, I am sure that other speakers in this debate will present information giving further support to the report’s findings. Because of this I do not propose to confine my remarks tonight to the Soviet Union’s bleak human rights record. In adopting this stance, I remind honourable members that the report before the House particularly noted at paragraph 10.47 that:

The effect of any such pressure on the Soviet Union will be diminished insofar as similar denials of human rights in friendly countries are not likewise exposed by critics of the Soviet Union.

-I call the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr Uren:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I now draw your attention to the state of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-A quorum is required. Ring the bells. (Quorum formed).

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I was referring to countries such as Nicaragua, Uganda and the hitherto self-styled Central African Empire. All had harsh and despotic regimes which have been overthrown and replaced by ones concerned to see the restoration of basic human rights.

Looking closer to Australia, I am glad to report that the Indonesian Government has recently honoured its intention, initially stated in 1975 and re-affirmed on a number of occasions, to release or bring to trial by the end of 1 979 all remaining prisoners detained for involvement in the 1965 coup attempt. This process of international improvement is by no means complete and the Government shares the deeply held concern of many Australians at the prevailing situation in a number of countries.

A country of particular concern to the Government is Kampuchea. The citizens of that country now find themselves in a situation whereby one oppressive regime has been replaced by another. It is now almost universally acknowledged that the Pol Pot regime committed gross abuses of human rights. The Australian Government has repeatedly condemned the excesses of that regime, but that does not mean that we can condone Vietnam’s actions. There is also evidence to suggest that significant human rights violations have occurred in a number of countries in Latin America. Some of these situations will be considered by the current session of the Commission on Human rights and Australia will be adding its voice to those calling for a return to standards of decency and recognition of human dignity in those countries. At the same time, the Government believes that it is important that charges against any country or group of countries should be thoroughly investigated and properly proven before action is taken. The influence of the Commission would be considerably lessened if it were seen to act hastily or without proper procedures. Those who wish to frustrate the Commission’s work would be in an easier position to do so if they could point to evidence of vindictiveness or dishonesty in its proceedings. Australia has been very prominent in the last three sessions of the Commission in working to improve its procedures so that the Commission not only would be more effective but also would be seen to be more effective.

The free world’s actions against Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan and steps to ensure that the USSR does not - ( Quorum formed).

Mr MacKELLAR:

- Mr Deputy Speaker -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr Bourchier) put:

That the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs be granted an extension of time.

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 27

Majority…… 35

In division-

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

House, I seek guidance. Does this mean that if the Opposition seeks an extension of time for some of its speakers the Government will grant the same amount of time as has now been taken by the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs?

An analysis of the whole course of events shows that the real reason for the complex situation which has arisen was the lack of unity, of understanding, and of the necessary altruism in the West. It is deplorable that the initiative of the US Congress not only failed to receive support from other Western countries, their parliaments and public figures, but even worse, after the USSR repudiated the trade agreement, they all rushed in with immediate offers of credits. It is regrettable that the principles behind the amendment were never completely explained in the United States, and the amendment itself became a political football. I hope that the majority of American Congressmen will remain firm on this question of moral principle in spite of strong pressures exerted on them by person who do not understand the problem as a whole or who are guided by short-term, narrow and selfish interests. To make concessions in response to Soviet pressure would have tragic consequences not only for emigration but for all future relations between socialist and Western countries.

The importance of respect for human rights ought to be a contributing factor to good relations between states. In other words, it ought to be a contributing factor towards detente, which is what the Helsinki declaration is all about. It is a new principle which has been recorded for the first time and which is what gives the dissidents’ activity its legality. Like all important Soviet actions the recent and carefully worked out exchange of political prisoners for Soviet spies convicted by American courts has been combed over for both tactical and long range political implications. It raised the question of whether a softening of Moscow’s attitudes should be seen in the release of two Jewish activists, a Ukrainian nationalist, a Baptist pastor and a leader of the watchdog group set up to monitor Soviet compliance with the Helsinki Accords on human rights. This is a key question for the United States Senate ratification debate on the soontobesigned Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. It will influence the decision now being discussed on the offering of trade concessions, which Congress has denied the Russians because of their failure to let Soviet Jews and others emigrate freely. The trade question becomes more urgent with the warm-up of the United States relations with Russia’s arch rival, China. It had to pay a price but I regret to say it was a marked down price. Six months of negotiating went by while the Americans tried and failed to include Orlov and Shcharansky.

As dissidents see it, the Soviet Union deserves no praise; in fact it should be condemned for its continued repression. American officials point to a dramatic upsurge in the rate of Soviet Jewish emigration, as well as the pardoning of some other Jewish activists. Although Senator Henry Jackson does not agree with it, a consensus is developing to interpret these facts as justification for a one-year-at-a-time approval of trade concessions. Jackson insists on an acceptable and formal Soviet statement on emigration before granting concessions. One clear indicator of how little is new inside the closed Soviet system is the degree of Russian compliance with the Helsinki agreement. In 1975 the United States, the Soviet Union and 33 other nations signed an agreement that included a chapter on co-operation in humanitarian and other fields. Aimed at a freer flow of people and ideas, it listed specific areas of human contacts that were to be improved.

Watchdog groups sprouted up in Moscow, Kiev and other cities. To get the word out they had to rely on smuggled documents and wordofmouth reports to Soviet correspondents in Moscow. The result was that the most creative and courageous members were either locked up or pushed or put into exile. The Russians get marks for increasing the flow of restricted immigration of Jews in compliance with the Helsinki Accord on the unification of families. I do not deny that. But in violation of the Accord, religious freedom for the Soviet citizen remains circumscribed. Nothing has changed. Georgi Vins went to gaol because he wanted to be a pastor in his Baptist congregation. Ginzburg was fighting to be free in his own country, not in somebody elses. The number of apostates grows.

Recently such leading artists as the cellist Rostropovich, opera star Vishnevskaya conductors Kondrashin and Barshai, pianists Ashkenazy and Novitskaya and ballet star Makarova have defected or emigrated. In the past month there has been a whole spurt of defections from the Soviet Union- Godunov, the Bolshoi soloists Leonid and Valentina Kozloy and sometime ago the former world and Olympic figure skating champions Protopopov and Belousova. How many more would defect if it were not for the common practice of the authorities of keeping a spouse or other close relative at home? Each defection is seen obviously as a political threat. The trial of Havel and five other leading Czech dissidents has drawn a mounting chorus of protests from abroad. The most telling protests came from the French communist party, which is generally restrained if I may say so, in its public statements on affairs in Eastern Europe. It said:

We cannot accept the trials and prison sentences be substituted for the necessary political and ideological struggle. The acquittal of those on trial is now the only solution in the interests of justice and socialism.

It can be stated that what the Soviets fear most of all is nationalism, for instance in the Ukraine, but particularly the nationalism of the Baltic states of which the Lithuanians comprise the greatest dissent movement. That dissent straddles all classes of Lithuanian society. The Society Government is a vocal champion of anti-imperialism yet, within the Soviet Union, the Government faces growing agitation and unrest among some of the non-Russian people who make up more than half of its population. Its problem is remarkably like that of the former imperial powers. The main difference is that there is no salt water separating Russia from its non-Russian subjects.

In the longer run, the greatest threat to the cohesion of the Soviet state comes not from the old centres of non-Russian dissent in European Russia but from Soviet central Asia. The problem is that the population of this largely Moslem area is growing fast while that of the European Soviet Union is much slower. The Moslem birth rate is so high that it is estimated that the number of Moslems will double by the end of the century. Russians are on the verge of becoming a minority within the Soviet Union. One economic problem this will cause by the year 2000 is that many Moslems will be leaving their present rural employment in search of jobs in the cities. This will call for more investment in industry in the Moslem republics and could turn them into centres of power that might challenge the central authority in Moscow. We ought to take note of that.

The Soviet Government is also worried that its vulnerability to nationalist unrest could be exploited by its adversaries abroad, particularly China. Most communists in developing nations claim that a roof over their head is more important than the right of free speech. Let us examine that. In the Third World countries suffering from poverty, widespread illiteracy and a yawning gap in domestic distribution of incomes and wealth, a constitutionally guaranteed freedom of opposition and dissent may not be as significant as freedom from despair, disease or deprivation. The masses might indeed be much happier if they could put more into their mouths than empty words, if they could have a health care centre instead of a Hyde Park corner, if they were assured of gainful employment instead of the right to march on the capitol. Those of us in the west who insist on the observance of human rights as a condition of their help should not lose sight of the fact that these rights neither were discovered in the West nor always assiduously observed here. There probably was greater respect for religious freedom and greater tolerance for ethnic diversity under Cyrus the Achaemenian than exists today in some of the so-called Western democracies. We ought not overlook that.

Given the present still colonial pattern of world production and exchange, one can argue that the political rights of the people in the Third World would be substantially enhanced if they could be freed from the shackles of poverty, illiteracy and ill health, if their basic human needs could be met by co-operative efforts between the rich north and the poor south. To champion the cause of human rights, is, I confess, an admirable pursuit, but let us not forget that empty heads and empty stomachs may find the due process also frightfully empty. Whilst I personally cannot subscribe to this view, it ought to be given the respect it deserves in any evaluation of this complex question of human rights.

Regrettably, as I assess the situation, the average Soviet citizen- this has been ably put by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and we ought, on both sides of the House, to acknowledge it- has never been abroad. He can only judge conditions in his country by what things used to be like there in the past. He has never seen anything else. The best, if not the only, hope of peace for humanity lies in the gradual evolution, if that is possible, of the Soviet Union into something easier to live with. While vigorously opposing, we ought at least to keep our end up. We should do everything we can to hurry the process of evolution and help to let all the fresh air possible into the Soviet Union. The more contacts and the more exchanges of visits that take place the better. We certainly have nothing to fear from them or from any comparisons which may have been drawn between our two systems.

The report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence makes several recommendations on what the West can do to secure and improve rights in the Soviet Union. The dominant viewpoint presented to the Committee by witnesses and through submissions is that the more Western publicity the causes of the dissidents receive the better. That is my view. Australia should take the opportunities presented by bilateral discussions or negotiations between the two governments and cultural, academic and scientific exchanges between individuals to express its disapproval of Soviet breaches of human rights commitments. However, Australia’s international position in regard to human rights will be much stronger once the

Australian Government ratifies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which it signed in 1 973. We ought to do that as quickly as possible.

The Soviet Union is not the only offender regarding the violation of human rights. There are other nations where attention needs to be directed. I strongly commend the support of the Parliament to the final recommendations of the Committee, that a Standing Committee of the Australian Parliament on Human Rights be established to report on serious violations in any country, including Australia. I take responsibility for initiating that move. I regret to say that I doubt whether it will get the support of either chamber of this Parliament.

I want to make one more brief observation in the few minutes I have remaining. There is one thought that has always stuck in the back of my mind. We of this latter generation ought to recall that in nazi Germany a non-Jew had complete freedom to speak publicly, whenever he chose, in support of Hitler’s policy. Let me conclude with a truism. It is an extract from a book by Lord Hailsham entitled Dilemma of Democracy. I would not necessarily subscribe to the central thesis of the book. The following extract seems to me to put far more cogently the need for the persistent struggle for human rights. The memorable passage is on page 232. It states:

The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud.

In my view it is the Orlovs, the Ginzburgs and the Sakharovs, not the Stalins, the Khrushchevs and the Brezhnevs, who make this world a greater place in which to live. As long as we allow this type of thing to go on and as long as honourable members on both sides of the House do not have the courage to set up a standing committee on human rights, we will never have the right to vet that.

Mr Peter Johnson:
BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND · LP

Mr Scholes:

– The number of people present when the quorum was called was under 40.

Mr Uren:

– I will take -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Will the honourable member for Reid resume his seat for a minute. In answer to the honourable member for

Corio I point out that the Chair has made its position quite plain already. I cannot interpret the facts.

Mr Scholes:

– The number counted in the chamber was 37. That is under a quorum. Six honourable members came in after.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I am informed that a quorum was present.

Mr Viner:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. You have endeavoured to put the question a number of times and you are being vexatiously interrupted and frustrated in the performance of your duties. I would have thought that the honourable member for Corio, who is in charge of the Opposition business at the moment, and the honourable member for Reid would accept the ruling of the Chair on the advice of the Clerk with the decorum which this House deserves.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-For the last time I will be very tolerant. I call the honourable member for Reid.

Mr Uren:

– I disagree with the count. When I called the quorum fewer than 40 members were present. Due to the delay of making the count a substantial number of honourable members who were outside the precincts of the House moved into the House from the back and both side doors. The delay extended over such a period that one could not give a correct account. I will dissent from the count. On my count, fewer than 40 members were present. I have a fair understanding of the rules. I know that we have to have one-third present to form a quorum and I made my decision accordingly.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Viner’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 69

NOES: 33

Majority…… 36

AYES

NOES

In Division-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– In answer to the honourable member for Chifley, I point out that as far as I am aware the Chair only has the role of describing whether a quorum is present at the time of the calling of the quorum. As I have explained already, the advice given to me by the

Clerk was that a quorum was present. I cannot go beyond that.

Mr Armitage:

-I raise a further point of order. I think that the Clerk can quite easily give you the number and you can announce it to the House. There is nothing to stop that being done. That is what happened the last time that this situation occurred in relation to Mr Nixon.

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The honourable member for Reid thereupon withdrew from the chamber.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I support the motion moved by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) but I express some concern that after four sitting days in this session we have now engaged in four days of Soviet bashing and have yet to debate a single significant piece of legislation. I believe that the conclusions reached in the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled ‘Human Rights in the Soviet Union’ about the extent of violations of civil liberties are substantially correct. Nevertheless, I must say that I do have considerable sympathy for the minority report put in by honourable members, including the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) and the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) in which they expressed some concern as to whether the Parliament was really in a position to concentrate its efforts on one nation exclusively in its criticisms.

I am attracted to the suggestion- if it were only practicable- in conclusion 65 of the report that recommends-

That the Australian Parliament establish a standing committee on human rights and report on serious violations of human rights in any country, including Australia. The magnitude of such a task should not deter such a committee from examining in turn the situations in those countries where there have been the most serious violations of human rights.

One might suggest that that is an absolutely full time task and one might well ask: ‘After they do that what time will be left for any other activity in this Parliament?’ I am concerned that we may be examining civil liberties in too narrow a context. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has proclaimed the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics as public enemy No. 1 and as a result time was found very quickly for the motion of the honourable member for Prospect. Time was found also to consider the report ‘Human Rights in the Soviet Union ‘. But no time is found to consider other gross violations. We have spent two weeks on the USSR and one might well ask: What will it be next week? Will it be the USSR again, or can we spend time to consider Chile,

Indonesia, the Philippines, Uruguay, Haiti, Burma, Zaire, Pakistan or Iran?’

When did we ever condemn Uganda in the past at a time when it was important to condemn it? When did we ever raise the question of the regime of Emperor Bokassa in the Central African Empire- one of the most ghastly regimes in modern history- or President Masie’s regime in Equatorial Guinea, or what has gone on in Ethiopia as a number of honourable members have pointed out? When have we considered them? As we have considered Russia for the last two weeks can we please consider those other regimes next week or is it to be Russia again? If the Parliament accepts recommendation 65 of the Human Rights report, I think we ought to consider very seriously the violations that occur in our region and, indeed some of the violations of human rights that occur in our States.

It is significant, not to be considered in scale with what has happened in the Soviet Union, but we ought to be very sensitive about human rights in view of the reports of harassment in the northwest of Western Australia where police have been asking people how they voted. That is a very serious thing and it is something that we ought to take seriously. It is not to be considered in the same light as the great purges of the Soviet Union. We ought to remember that where violations of civil liberties are concerned we are by no means guiltless. I am sorry that the Minister for Health (Mr MacKellar) is not gracing us with his presence tonight.

Mr Innes:

– He is not well.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Innes) says that he is not well. I think that some of my colleagues will be interested to hear that we have had some nauseating hypocrisy over the question of the treatment of the Soviet Jews. I will advise the House about the treatment by the Australian Government of Jews out of the Soviet Union. The former Minister for Immigration, now the Minister for Health and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, has refused to grant the status of political refugee- which has an important political and juridical significance- to the Jews who have left the Soviet Union under pressure. In other words, the Minister supported the hardline position of his Department and called these unfortunate people ‘self-exiles’ or refugees. It is all right to come into this House for a debate and bag the Soviet Union; we are all prepared to do that. But when it comes to saying, ‘Let us look at the circumstances of the Jews who have left the

Soviet Union and let us consider them as prospective migrants to Australia’, do we regard them as refugees or not? The Minister says: ‘No. We do not regard them as refugees. Perhaps for the purpose of a debate we will but not so far as allowing immigration into Australia ‘.

I find that disgraceful. In fact his response has always been to say: ‘We do not need to regard them as refugees because they can always go to Israel.’ What an extraordinary concept of a refugee! One determines a refugee not by where he comes from but by looking at where he is going. In the context of this debate I cannot imagine a more nauseating piece of hypocrisy. The House ought to be aware of this.

Mr Baillieu:

– But it is not true.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-It is absolutely true. The House will listen spellbound to the oratory, the eloquence and intelligence of the honourable member for La Trobe who will, no doubt, set us right. The tragedy of the Soviet Union and the suppression of civil liberties is an old story which has been going on even since before the time of Lenin. Back in the Czars’ time we had the Okrana with tremendous persecution and thousands of people held in detention for their political beliefs. Right from the time of Lenin there has been a constant regime of pressure. At first that pressure was expressed by execution. Later it was by imprisonment and then exile. The penalties imposed now are not as stringent as they were a generation before but they are still to be deplored.

It is worth noting that when Lenin died in 1924 there were nine surviving members of the original Politburo. Of those members of the Politburo, the people who actually brought about the Russian revolution, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bubnov Krestinsky and Rykov were executed. Sokolnikov died in gaol. Tomsky committed suicide. Trotsky was murdered. In fact, I have stood behind his desk in the study at Coyoacan in Mexico City where he was assassinated in 1 940.

Mr Martin:

– With an ice pick.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-That is quite correct. Only Stalin died naturally. The old Bolsheviks, Lenin’s closest associates, were especially vulnerable. Stalin wanted no anti-popes to challenge Bolshevik orthodoxy. When Lenin’s widow, Krupskaya, chided Stalin for his purges he is said to have made the chilling reply: ‘Be silent or I can easily find somebody else to be Lenin’s widow. ‘ In the period of the great purges of the 1 930s it has been estimated that the camps in Russia could accommodate as many as 8,400,000 persons. It has been estimated by admittedly a very strongly anti-Soviet source, but one fairly careful with his resource material I think- Robert Conquest in his book The Great Terror- that between 1934 and 1941 a total of 12 million to 14 million prisoners is suggested, with perhaps a million executions and two million dying of starvation or exposure. Millions were deported from Poland and the Baltic States from 1939 to 1941 and from re-occupied territories from 1944 to 1946. Conquest argues that between 1936, the beginning of the yezhovschina’ as it was called after Stalin’s agent Nikolai Yezhov, and 1952, the last full year of Stalin’s life, the death toll may have reached 12 million. Dr Andrei Sakharov estimates that the figure is ‘at least ten to fifteen million people’, and this does not include the three to four million killed in the collectivisation of agriculture.

The Soviet Union has been a kind of political pressure cooker with a tremendous imposition of State power. But we also have the situation where the people administering that State power are conscious that once they start to lift the pressure it is literally like opening a pressure cooker when the pressure is still there. What one gets is an explosion, the consequences of which one cannot really foresee. That is one of the reasons why, if the Soviets have lightened the pressure it has been very, very moderately. That moderation has really been spread. Any change has been spread over a matter of very many years.

There is black humour in the story of the three men who met in the Soviet concentration camp in the 1930s. They asked each other why they were there. The first one said: ‘I was against Radek.’ The second one said: ‘I was for Radek. The third one said: ‘I am Radek.’ The Soviet Union is really an intensely conservative society. It is a highly bureaucratised society. It is a highly traditional society in many ways. It is not in any sense, I believe, a Marxist society. It is certainly a Leninist society but it is not a society that Marx would have recognised in terms of what he was writing about in the 1 9th century. Marx, not long before his death, when he saw the factions that were developing in the communist parties, was careful to explain: ‘But I am not a Marxist myself. ‘ That is an absolutely authentic remark. The Soviet Union is not really a Marxist society; it is a highly conservative, highly bureaucratic society. In many ways it is one of the most unattractive technologically advanced societies in the world. There was a poem by Yevgenyi Yevtushenko which has a subtlety that will escape many members of the Government party but which illustrates the pressures of conformity in the Soviet Union:

A CAREER

The priests insisted that evil and unwise was Galileo

But as time shows, he who is unwise is most wise.

A scholar, a contemporary of Galileo,

Was no more stupid than Galileo.

He knew that the earth revolves-

But he had a family, and sitting with his wife in a carriage

Having committed his betrayal

Thought that he had established a career,

But actually he was destroying it.

To comprehend our planet Galileo risked alone and he was a great.

Now this I understand as a careerist, and so “Hail! to a career”,

When a career is like that of Shakespeare or Pasteur, Newton or Tolstoy.

Why did they slander them? Talent is talent,

No matter what. They are forgotten,

Those who cursed.

All those who reached for the stratosphere,

The doctors who perish from cholera,

They were the ones who made careers-

From their careers I take my example.

I believe in the same beliefs- their beliefs are my manhood.

I make my own career by not working at it.

In the New Statesman Roger Woddis makes a comment in a poem called The Sakharov Connection:

Would that I could ply my pen

To eulogise the fearless few!

What praises I would then bestow,

What madness from my lips would flow

With all the harmony I know,

To give the brave their due!

Ah, yes, but what superlatives

Would ring out loud and clear,

If in this fever I could find

Among the bludgeoned and the blind

A Sakharov who spoke his mind,

And was a hero here.

In other words, there is the most utter hypocrisy. We applaud people who speak out when they are in other countries. In our own country we are inclined to deride and ignore them.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Martin:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

– I hear the honourable gentleman. What is his purpose?

Mr Martin:

– I wish to move:

That the time of the honourable member for Lalor be extended.

Paragraph ( 5 ) states:

Requests the Government to transmit this resolution to the Government of the USSR.

There is a Labor man clearly describing what he thinks of the Soviet Government. He believes that its actions are quite inhuman and are not in accordance with what is internationally acceptable. The motion that has been moved and the words that have been expressed today by members of the Opposition clearly show their confused state of mind in relation to the Soviet Union. On the one hand, they want to take this opportunity, and I do not discredit them for it, to highlight what is being done to a highly respectable and internationally regarded scientist. On the other hand, they seem to underestimate what is happening to hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, and indeed in other countries. Of course, Afghanistan has become the keynote of international debate today because it is causing a critical situation which might inflame a world conflict and jeopardise world peace. It is for that reason that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in particular has been very forthcoming in expressing his views as to the seriousness of the situation, doing everything possible to try to get an internationally organised commitment to make the Soviet Union register just how seriously its actions are viewed.

I have been prompted to enter this debate tonight by the reaction in news reports to what happened this afternoon in the Parliament. The reaction to the straightforward political comments by the Prime Minister, who was accused of not telling the truth, of putting this House into absolute turmoil, needs rebuttal. The Prime Minister made a very factual statement, that is, that there is a string of members within the Labor Party who seem to want to find as many excuses as possible for Moscow and for the Soviet’s behaviour in Afghanistan. I believe that the Australian people also are concerned about the vacillating attitude of members of the Labor Party on this question. On the one hand, they profess to be horrified and disgusted. In the next breath, they do whatever they possibly can to undermine the efforts of this Government to have concerted action taken to register an international point of view against the Soviet Union. Because the Prime Minister has the courage to expose the falseness, the weakness, the hypocrisy and the counterfeit attitudes of the Labor Party -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The right honourable gentleman should not use the word ‘hypocrisy’.

Mr ANTHONY:

I am speaking on this issue because of my disgust at the baseless attack today on the Prime Minister by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a deplorable display of loss of temper, at his failure to be able to hold his public rating and his fear that the Prime Minister is commanding the respect that all of us hold for a person of courage, a person who is prepared to give leadership to this country and who is prepared to look after the human rights of people.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr Hayden:

- Mr Speaker -

Motion (by Mr Anthony) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Amendments agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

page 386

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member to put the motion in writing.

Mr Viner:

- Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-I cannot accept that motion at the moment.

Mr Scholes having submitted his motion in

Mr SCHOLES:

-We have just seen an exhibition of the sort of denial of civil liberties about which this House is expressing an opinion.

Motion ( by Mr Viner) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

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

AYES: 73

NOES: 32

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

-Mr Speaker, I second the motion. The agreed time for the termination of this debate was 10.30 p.m.

Motion (by Mr Viner) put:

That the honourable member be not further heard.

Question put.

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

AYES: 72

NOES: 31

Majority……. 41

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Debate interrupted.

page 388

ADJOURNMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr Viner:

– I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 388

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Debate resumed.

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

– The Government cannot accept this motion to suspend Standing Orders for two very simple reasons. Firstly, the Opposition today has embarked upon a calculated frustration of the proceedings of this House from the moment that the Leader of the -

Motion ( by Mr Hurford) put:

That the Leader of the House be not further heard.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 72

Majority……. 41

-No. The honourable member for Shortland, I think, does not follow the procedures that have occurred. The Minister was called and he commenced to speak. The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) moved that he be no longer heard. The question went to a division. The question was resolved in the negative. The consequence is that the Minister still has the call- until now. He no longer has the call because the time for the debate has expired.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 389

ADJOURNMENT

Olympic Games- Australian Labor Party- Political Broadcasts- Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

– He has sold out even Hawke. He is the man of whom Mr Wran said that he had absolutely no projection, no hope and no possibility of getting back into power. He is the man of whom Mr Wran said when he went to America that he did not have a hope of winning an election for at least six years. After his performance today the judgment of the Australian people will be that this man will never ever have the opportunity to serve on the Treasury benches of this country. He will be completely and utterly rejected by the Australian people at the next election. Then Senator Wriedt had a great deal to inform him about. He told him to mind his own business in effect; that the Government of the day makes foreign policy and that the way he was going on was, in fact, a total disgrace to the foreign policy formulation of this country.

Only last week the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young) was not too happy with the Leader of the Opposition at all when he was dismissed from his office as Manager of Opposition Business. We ended up with a further sellout; we ended up with a new Manager of Opposition Business. He has been allowed by the Leader of the Opposition to support him. He has been collared by the left wing in order to come in here and abuse the processes of the Parliament as much as possible. We have a panic-stricken Leader of the Opposition, a man who knows that he is seeing electoral defeat, a man who is scared stiff of the possibility of being supplanted even before the next election, and he is seeking the most base form of political popularity with the people behind him. The people behind him who are grinning most of all are the left wingers. We all know that the Labor Party really is two parties, the left wing and the right wing. Whenever one talks to the right wingers of the Labor Party, even members who are sitting there behind him now, one realises that they are scared stiff of the way he is pandering to the Left and being taken over by the Left. In New South Wales, in particular, the right wing members call the left wing members the ‘corns’. They talk to one straight out about the corns. It is long overdue for us to stop pussy-footing about with this Labor Party over here. It is divided; it is completely split. The corns comprise the left wing and that is what they call themselves. The right wing simply does not know how to handle them.

Today the Leader of the Opposition came in here, with invective and with spleen, and made a speech that disgraced this House. This has been the blackest day in this Parliament in the time that I have been here. I am sure it is the blackest day for many years. All he could do was come in here and utter abuse. He screamed and raved and lost control until his face was as red as his politics. He is going to find that the Australian people will not have a bar of it. He is the man who is leading the most divided party in Australia’s history. The Labor Party is about to split. He is so desparate that he has to take advantage of every conceivable means. He knows that Mr Wran is even jockeying for the seat of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) or for one of the Newcastle seats.

-The honourable gentleman would not be permitted to say that. I ask him to withdraw those words.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I withdraw the phrase ‘a complete fraud’. He is certainly not taken seriously by any person in this House. He and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who surprisingly is not with us tonight- if he were I would have expected him to rise next to support the honourable member for St George- are barristers, not of terribly high standing in the profession, who have come here because they feel that here they can use their ability to use words for a much higher salary than they would be able to earn at the bar. They are amongst the relatively few of us who are looked at by the Remuneration Tribunal when it decides yearly that we should not have our pay increased. It looks at the honourable member for

Denison and the honourable member for St George and says: ‘They are certainly making more here than they would be able to make at the bar’. It is difficult to argue with that point of view. In medical practice I think most doctors, even the people on strike in Bega, would be making more-

Mr Neil:

– You only just beat a Medibank computer out.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-Yes, I made the sacrifice and that is why I take some interest in Australian politics and try to keep it at a reasonable level. If I did not want to keep it at a reasonable level I would go back to medical practice. I would have certain financial benefits there which are not available to me in this House. I do appeal to other members of the House -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s time has expired. Before I call any further speaker, I refer to a question raised by the Leader of the Opposition and by the honourable member for Grayndler. I draw their attention to Standing Order 9 1 , which says:

Provided that, if no other Member rises to address the House, a Member who has already spoken to the motion may speak a second time for a period not exceeding 5 minutes.

The fact is that when the Leader of the Opposition stood there were other members standing; hence my decision.

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
Lilley

– I can understand the difficulty which the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) had in speaking tonight because I would remind him that on 1 9 February he had difficulty in supporting a policy. He had this to say:

It is quite clear that the Olympic Games in Moscow should be boycotted, not only because of what has happened in Afghanistan, but also because of the type of country the Soviet Union is . . .

Given a sense of honesty which overcomes him from time to time no wonder he found difficulty in defending what had been uttered previously from his own side of the centre table. In the few minutes available to me I want to explore only one objective fact apart from personalities and to put it in an historical context. On the three occasions since the middle 1 950s that the Soviet Union has invaded another country Leaders of the Opposition have explained the Soviet action in terms of supposed faults of the West. I remind the House that when the Soviet Union went into Hungary Dr Evatt defended it. He said the position was contributed to significantly by the British and the French action in terms of Suez. The pattern is very significant for the House. The invasion of Czechoslovakia was defended because of the American presence in South Vietnam. On the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald of8 January 1980, a report by Andrew Kruger states that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) unhappily said that it was as immoral for the Soviet Union to be in Afghanistan as it was for the Australians and the Americans to be in South Vietnam. The constant feature of those three statements of truth is that every one would have been welcomed by the Soviet Ambassador either in London, Washington or Canberra because every one of those Soviet actions has received some justification from the Opposition on account of supposed force by the West. The last leader of the Australian Labor Party to condemn a communist action -

Mr SPEAKER:

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

House adjourned at 1 1 p.m.

page 392

PAPERS

The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 26 February 1980, pursuant to statute:

Commonwealth Banks Act- Appointment certificatesP. J. Costigan, N. N. Dixon.

Defence Act- Determination- 1980- Serial No. 2- Southern Rhodesia Allowance.

Lands Acquisition Act- Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorized under sub-section 7(1).

page 393

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Mr John Doohan (Question No. 3260)

Mr Dawkins:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

Did the Attorney-General receive a letter from Mr John Doohan of 21 Bartlett Street, Willagee, Western Australia, dated 28 November 1 977.
If so, did the letter contain advice to the effect that on or about 7 September 1977 Mr Doohan was interviewed at his home by Detective Sergeant Stanton of the Commonwealth Police concerning Mr Doohan ‘s attitude to uranium mining when the stated duty of Detective Sergeant Stanton concerned an alleged offence by another party against sections of the Crimes Act as they relate to the Australian Postal Commission or other Commonwealth body.
If the position is as stated, will the Attorney-General state (a) whether Detective Sergeant Stanton officially ascertained Mr Doohan ‘s attitudes to the mining of uranium; if so, under what authority, (b) whether Mr Doohan ‘s attitude to the mining of uranium is a matter of record with any Commonwealth security or law enforcement organisation and (c) what action he has taken regarding the allegations concerning offences against the Crimes Act as they relate to the Australian Postal Commission or other Commonwealth body.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

Yes.
Mr Doohan ‘s letter did contain advice to the effect that Mr Doohan was interviewed at his home by Detective Sergeant Stanton on or about 7 September 1977. However, the letter does not accurately record the circumstances of his interview with Detective Sergeant Stanton. Mr Doohan was interviewed at his request in respect of information allegedly held by him in relation to a certain group. His attitude to uranium mining emerged as part of the general conversation.
(a) See answer to (2).
1. Mr Doohan ‘s attitude to uranium mining is recorded in Detective Sergeant Stanton’s report of interview. That report has not been made available to any security or other law enforcement organisation.
2. No action has been taken as no offence has been disclosed.

Telephone Tapping (Question No. 3435)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 March 1979:

1 ) What is the mechanism by which phone tapping may be authorised by (a) the Commonwealth and (b) the States.
How many authorisations were obtained in each year since 1970.
How many (a) Commonwealth and (b) State parliamentarians were amongst those whose phones were tapped during each of those years.
How many phone tappings are authorised at present.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

1 ) The High Court decision in Miller v. Miller (1978)53 ALJR established that the Commonwealth Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960 covers the field as regards the interception of telephonic communications passing over the telephone system. Provision is made in that Act for the Attorney-General, when requested by the DirectorGeneral of Security, to issue a warrant authorising the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to intercept communications passing over the telephone system if he is satisfied that-
1. the telephone service is being or is likely to be-
1. used by a person engaged in, or reasonably suspected by the Director-General of Security of being engaged in, or of being likely to engage in, activities prejudicial to the security of the Commonwealth; or
2. used for purposes prejudicial to the security of the Commonwealth; and
3. the interception by the Organisation of Communications passing to, from or over the telephone service will, or is likely to, assist the Organisation in carrying out its function of obtaining intelligence relevant to the security of the Commonwealth.

In emergency circumstances the Director-General of Security may authorise the interception of communications. There is no provision in the Act that would permit the States to intercept telephone communications passing over the telephone system. I am not aware of any State law purporting to permit such action.

The Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960 will be replaced by the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 when that Act enters into force.

, (3) and (4) In accordance with the general practice of successive Governments, I do not propose to provide information concerning the operations of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Airbus Aircraft (Question No. 5107)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 November 1 979:

1 ) Has the Government approved the purchase of Airbus A-300 aircraft by TAA.
Is the noise level of these aircraft, as perceived by residents living close to an airport, less than that from existing aircraft.
By what factor is the noise level of the Airbus A-300 different from that of existing domestic jet aircraft.
Is it anticipated that more or less flights into Adelaide will be required if these aircraft are introduced- if so, how many.
5 ) If these aircraft are to be introduced on regular flights, what changes will need to be made to the (a) runway and navigation aids at Adelaide Airport and (b) Adelaide Airport terminal (e.g. baggage handling facilities, departure lounges, and ticket booking areas) in view of the larger number of passengers who will travel on any one flight of these new aircraft.
) When will these changes be made.
Has the Government decided on a site and bought land for a future airport for Adelaide.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

and (2) Yes.
The effective perceived noise level of the A300B series aircraft, as compared with that of the Boeing 727-200 and McDonnell-Douglas DC9-30 aircraft of the domestic airlines, is on take-off 12 decibels lower than the DC9; and on approach 1 decibel lower than the B727-200 and 8 decibels lower than the DC9. A reduction of 10 decibels in noise level is normally perceived to be about half as loud.
In the event of TAA operating Airbus services to Adelaide I would anticipate some reduction in frequency particularly during peak hours. Although matters associated with schedules planning are primarily for the airline itself based upon its assessment of market requirement.
(a) The existing length of the main runway does not permit desired maximum payload operations from Adelaide to Penh by B727-200 aircraft. Plans are in hand to extend this runway (for the B727 operations) to the maximum obtainable length within the aerodrome boundary. Introduction of A300B4 aircraft will not alter these plans. Pavement strength of the runway is adequate for A300B4 operations but taxiways and apron require strengthening and taxiway intersections would need to be widened.

No changes are foreseen to the navigation aids at Adelaide as it already has standard aids which are in use at all capitals. The airlines should ensure that any aircraft they may buy are fitted to use these standard aids.

Modifications will be required to ticketing and baggage claim areas at an approximate cost of around $250,000 per airline for these facilities.
1. Timing will be such as to fit in with expected regular operating dates with due consideration of resource constraints. Commencement of runway extensions is planned for 1981. Taxiway, apron and terminal works are not yet programmed but would be planned for completion by 1983.
2. The Government has neither purchased land nor decided on a specific site for a future airport for Adelaide. Following the recommendations of the Joint Governments Advisory Committee on Adelaide’s Airline-Airport Requirements, my Department is evaluating sites for a major airport in the Two Wells/Virginia area.

National Railway Network (Question No. 5146)

Mr Morris:

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

1 ) What specific projects have been approved for funding under the National Railway Network (Financial Assistance) Act 1979.
What funds are to be allocated to each project by the Australian Government and the relevant State Government or railway authority.
When is each project scheduled for completion.
What benefits by way of increased line capacity or reduced operating costs are expected to flow from each project.
What are the terms and conditions of repayment of Commonwealth repayable grants for each project.

Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

1 ) The approved projects are:

New South Wales-

Goulburn signalling project

Junee-Albury Centralised Traffic Control and Crossing Loops project

Telarah-Taree Centralised Traffic Control project

Victoria-

South Dynon Container Terminal project

Ararat-Serviceton Centralised Traffic Control and Crossing Loops project

Queensland-

Acacia Ridge- Terminal Facilities project

Caboolture-Gympie Centralised Traffic Control

Western Australia-

Kwinana-Mundijong Track Upgrading project

and (3) Under an Agreement concluded with Queensland on 15 November 1979, Commonwealth financial assistance in respect of the projects to be assisted shall not exceed:

Acacia Ridge Terminal Facilities project- $ 1 1 . 1 5m

Caboolture-Gympie CTC-$9. 10m

It is anticipated that works on these projects will be carried out prior to conclusion of the present Agreement.

Funding allocations and completion dates for projects in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia cannot be specified as Agreements have not yet been concluded with these States.

It is however, the Commonwealth’s intention to fund 100 per cent of the agreed cost of each project to be assisted.

The mainline upgrading program represents one pan of joint Commonwealth/State efforts to upgrade strategic sections owned and operated by the States of the national rail network. Following consideration of mainline upgrading projects by the Board of the Australian Railway Research and Development Organisation, the Chairman of ARRDO recommended a program of works. The projects were approved for assistance in accordance with that advice. The types of projects approved for assistance have been evaluated in studies carried out by the States and the Bureau of Transport Economics.

Typically, the benefits identified in the studies include rates of return on investment in excess of 20 per cent and in some instances up to 45 per cent, with benefit cost ratios of 2: 1 or better.

As an example of the benefits which could accrue, the BTE’s report- ‘Mainline Upgrading- Evaluation of a Range of Options for the Melbourne-Sydney Rail Link’ suggested that upgrading had the potential to increase rail traffic from 17 trains of 800 tonnes per day to 25 trains of 1 100 tonnes per day including 16 fast express trains compared to 8 at present.

Similar benefits from improvements in services have been demonstrated in the other studies.

The interest rate for the projects in Queensland mentioned in (2) and (3) will be the private treaty semigovernment rate. Repayments of capital are to be made over a fifteen year period commencing June 1 984.

Aboriginal Affairs: Official Openings of Projects (Question No. 5207)

Mr Les Johnson:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

In respect of official openings of projects which received Federal Government funding which (a) local Federal Government Member, (b) local Federal Opposition Member, (c) Government Senator or (d) Opposition Senator officially represented the Minister since December 1975.
On which occasions were Government cheques handed over.

Mr Viner:
LP

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

1 ) and (2 ) Formal records have not been maintained in respect of the occasions to which the honourable member refers. So far as can be ascertained, the following is the position:

Senator N. Bonner opened the Brisbane Tribal Council in July 1 977. Mr D. Cameron, M.P., Government Member for Fadden was in attendance. No cheque was handed over.

The Hon. K. Newman, M.P., Minister for Productivity (then Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development) opened the Furneaux Fish Processing Project on behalf of the Minister in October 1977. No cheque was handed over.

Mr G. Dean, M.P., Government Member for Herbert (Qld), presented a cheque for $16,200 to the Beche de Mer Fishing Co. Ltd, Townsville, in March 1978.

Mr P. M. Ruddock, M.P., Government Member for Dundas (NSW), represented the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs when he opened the Dennewan Community Centre, Coonamble, in March 1978. No cheque was handed over.

Mr M. Hodgman, M.P., Government Member for Denison (Tasmania) represented the Minister when he opened the Namatjira Haven in April 1979. No cheque was handed over.

Senator B. Kilgariff represented the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at the opening of the Corroboree Hostel in Katherine in June 1 979. No cheque was handed over.

Canberra Housing Statistics (Question No. 5248)

Mr Innes:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

How many (a) Government and (b) private houses were built in Canberra before (i) 1945, (ii) 1940, (iii) 1935 and(iv) 1930.
How many of each of those houses remain and how many have been demolished in the last 5 years.
How many of the remaining houses in each category are on blocks zoned for redevelopment.

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

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

The information sought is not readily available from the Department’s records or other sources and I could not justify at this time directing staff resources away from other important work to assemble this information.

However, if the honourable member has particular houses in mind I would be pleased to try and provide a response.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 February 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1980/19800226_reps_31_hor117/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives26 February 1980

PETITIONS

National Women’s Advisory Council

Pornographic Publications

Refugees

Metric System

Taxation: Superannuation

Unemployment

National Women’s Advisory Council

Education

Olympic Games

Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industries

Australian Financial System

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr HAYDEN:OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr HOWARD:BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr Cohen:

Mr Hayden:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Cohen:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Hayden:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Hayden:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Hayden:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Hayden:

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Innes:

Mr HOWARD:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Holding:

Mr HOWARD:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Hayden:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HOWARD:

QUESTION

PORT OF BURNIE: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Mr BURR:WILMOT, TASMANIA

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

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

QUESTION

MONEY SUPPLY

Mr WILLIS:GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

Mr HOWARD:LP

QUESTION

CHINESE VICE-PREMIER: VISIT TO AUSTRALIA

Mr CONNOLLY:BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:LP

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr Les McMahon:SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr HOWARD:LP

QUESTION

TREATMENT OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN IN NEPAL

Mr CALDER:NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Mr HUMPHREYS:GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr HOWARD:LP

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HOWARD:

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr NEIL:ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MacKELLAR:LP

Mr Morris:

House of Representatives
26 February 1980

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr HOWARD:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

Mr BURR:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

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

Mr WILLIS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

Mr HOWARD:
LP

Mr CONNOLLY:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr HOWARD:
LP

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

Mr HUMPHREYS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr HOWARD:
LP

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MacKELLAR:
LP

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr FISHER:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

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

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

Mr KEVIN CAIRNS:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP