Senate
31 March 1977

30th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1977

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 685

PETITIONS

Australian Roads

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 1 7 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned concerned citizens respectfully showeth:

Australia’s extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding.

Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

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

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

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator BONNER:

– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Australian Roads

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned concerned citizens respectfully showeth:

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should ensure:

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

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

Petition received.

Compulsory Retirement of Australian Government Employees

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That Australian Government employees strenuously oppose the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill first introduced in the House of Representatives on 8 December 1976. The basis for opposition includes the following reasons:

  1. The grounds constituting ‘due cause’ for termination of services of tenured staff are expanded beyond those already available in existing legislation thereby introducing subjective discretionary powers which are inconsistent with career service expectations and entitlements;
  2. The Bill relegates to subordinate legislation or administrative direction matters affecting substantive rights of employees including the scale of compensation, the composition and powers of the appellate tribunal, and the criteria upon which services may be terminated;
  3. Existing rights of reinstatement in tenured employment are abrogated by the Bill;
  4. Agreement has not been reached on a number of matters which should have been finalised before any attempt to introduce legislation. These include: an arbitral determination on redundancy arrangements; benefits; procedures.
  5. As currently drafted the Bill overrides entitlements under Arbitration awards.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject passage of any legislation to extend powers of compulsory retirement of Australian Government employees unless and until any variation has been agreed with staff representatives.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

page 685

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE

Notice of Motion

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

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

That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce for inquiry and report: The investigation of food prices, including:

wholesalers ‘ markups;

b ) the correlation of production costs to retail prices;

the disparity between prices paid to primary producers and the end cost to the consumer, particularly in relation to meat, dairy produce and vegetables; and

the cost of freight applied to foodstuffs outside the metropolitan areas.

page 686

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 686

QUESTION

OVERSEAS LOANS

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to Senator Cotton in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer-

Senator Withers:

– He is not here.

Senator Carrick:

– I will take the question.

Senator WRIEDT:

– In the absence of Senator Cotton I think I should direct the question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that within the last 2 weeks officers representing the Australian Government approached British and French financial institutions and requested that they sound out the Saudi Arabian monetary authority’s attitude towards providing loan funds to Australia? If it is a fact, what is the purpose of such a loan?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I have no knowledge of the matters alleged by the Leader of the Opposition and until I can ascertain whether they are correct I will not be able to answer the second question. I will seek the information.

I inform the Senate that Senator Cotton has been called away urgently and will be back as soon as possible. In the meantime questions which would normally be directed to him can be directed either to me or to Senator Carrick.

page 686

QUESTION

INCOME EQUALISATION DEPOSIT SCHEME

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– In the absence of Senator Cotton, I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. My question relates to the income equalisation deposit scheme. From the answer I received yesterday to a question upon notice I am pleased to note that every application for withdrawal that has been processed by the deputy commissioner to 18 March has been successful. Would the Minister be prepared to consider changes to two details of the scheme; firstly, to have the benefits of the scheme extended to all taxpayers and, secondly, to change the method of calculating interest on the deposits so that they become more attractive to depositors on a low rate of tax and less attractive than the 162/3 per cent benefit that can be obtained by some taxpayers?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will answer the question in the absence of Senator Cotton. Because the question poses a series of technical questions asking whether the Government will introduce new policy directions in relation to this matter, clearly the question is one for the Treasurer. I will arrange for it to be directed to the Treasurer and will seek a response from him.

page 686

QUESTION

ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR INTER-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and I preface it by referring to the statement issued by the Prime Minister on 24 March 1977- a statement which contained details of the appointment of persons to the Advisory Council for InterGovernment Relations. Can the Minister inform the Parliament why the Queensland Government refused to be represented on the Advisory Council and whether a further attempt will be made by the Australian Government to persuade the Queensland Government to elect a delegate? Can the Minister also advise how local government representatives were appointed, how the community representatives were appointed and whether Mr H. E. Peterson, who represents Queensland, is any relation of the Queensland Premier?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– That question is more properly directed to me. I ask Senator Keeffe to jog my memory as to the first question asked because I did not realise at that time that I would be answering it. I will then be happy to respond.

Senator KEEFFE:

-The first part of the question related to whether the Minister could inform the Parliament why the Queensland Government refused to be represented on the Advisory Council and whether the Australian Government is making a further attempt to persuade the Queensland Government to elect a delegate?

Senator CARRICK:

– The Commonwealth Government, of course, believes that it is very desirable that all States be represented and therefore regards it as being open to the Queensland Government to be represented on the Advisory Council. Its representation would be most welcome. As I understand it, the Queensland Government has objected to the final decision to increase the number of local government representatives on the Advisory Council from 3 to 6 on the basis that the true representation of local government in terms of its public responsibility in Australia would more reasonably be 3 instead of 6, and that 6 representatives would be disproportionate to the general representation on the Council. As such they felt it was a principle to which they should adhere. The Commonwealth Government found that local government had extreme difficulties in any attempt to elect fewer than 6 people because it is structured not at a Commonwealth level but at the level of the 6 States with a secretariat or a federal body. It made strong representations that the only practical way it could be represented would be by 6 people, one from each State. The Commonwealth adhered to that proposal because it takes the view that the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations is not in any sense a numbers game. Its whole success or failure will depend upon the degree of good will of the 4 groups of people around the table and not in any sense on attempting a numbers game. I cannot specifically say how local government elected its 6 members. There is one member from each State. They are senior office bearers or past office bearers from each State. They were nominated to the Committee at the request of the Commonwealth. I am asked also how community representatives were decided upon. The Commonwealth invited the States and others to make suggestions. Names came forward. They were considered. Of course, they were submitted to the Governor-General-in-Council for decision. That is the broad basis of the Council itself. It would be competent at any time for the Queensland Government to seek to join the Advisory Council. I would say that it is welcome to do so.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I direct a supplementary question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Minister, in his reply to that section of the question dealing with the appointment of private individuals to the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations, said that the States and others nominated the people. Could the Minister elaborate on that a little? At the same time, could he explain why South Australia is not represented amongst that community group?

Senator CARRICK:

– I state in reply to the latter part of the question that it is impossible to have 6 States represented by 5 community representatives. We have not found such a formula yet. The problem is made more difficult and compounded further because, very rightly I think and with general consensus, it was decided that one appointee should be Professor Russell Mathews who is a very distinguished person and whose domicile is the Australian Capital Territory.

I am sorry that I did not respond to the other segment of Senator Keeffe ‘s question which related to Mr H. E. Petersen. Mr H. E. Petersen is a leading member of the legal profession in Queensland. I think that he is the chairman of the Bar Association or whatever the equivalent body is in that State. He is known as Tony Petersen although his initials are ‘H. E. He is highly regarded. As I understand the position, he is not related to Mr Bjelke-Petersen. However, I believe that the Premier would hold him in high regard.

page 687

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN RAILWAYS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Has the Commonwealth Government received from the South Australian Government a copy of its proposed new rail plan for connecting South Australia to the national standard gauge rail system? If so, has it examined the South Australian Government’s claims that the proposed plan slashes some $68m off the original plan? As delays in decisions may affect the ultimate cost of the project, when will the Government indicate its mind on the matter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Whilst I have a great deal of information on the matter, it may not be fully up to date and as specific as Senator Davidson and other honourable senators would require. I will therefore seek the information and let him have it.

page 687

QUESTION

STAFF SHORTAGES IN DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, is further to a question which Senator Grimes asked the Minister on Thursday, 24 March 1977, regarding the strains engendered by staff shortages in the Melbourne office of her Department. Has she received representations from the South Australian branch of the Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association giving details of lengthening and unacceptable delays in the processing of claims for pensions and benefits? Have discussions been held with the Public Service Board on the possibility of obtaining additional staff in line with the Minister’s assurance to the Estimates Committee last year that the Government had exempted the Department of Social Security from strict staff ceilings where they would result in a diminished service to the public? If so, what was the outcome of these discussions?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

-The matters raised by the South Australian staff of the Department of Social Security with the local branch of the Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association were matters of discussion and have been examined. Some matters needed consideration. Whilst some of the points raised in the South Australian representations are valid, the majority exaggerate the situation, particularly in relation to service to the client. As I understand it, delays of up to 14.5 weeks in processing new claims for pensions in one regional office, namely Alice Springs, do occur but investigation shows that this is due mainly to inadequate transport and communication difficulties. The delays are the subject of a close review. Further, the comment that at present there is a backlog of one month’s work in the family allowances section is not quite correct. The essential family allowances work is being processed. However, there are arrears of work associated with the student allowance review. There is a delay of some three or four weeks in resuming payment of allowances in respect of the current school year.

The wastage rate, that is, the rate of resignations is stated to be 18 per cent. A brief survey has determined the rate as being 15 per cent, which is no higher than that being experienced in other departments in South Australia. It is important to mention that approval has been obtained from the Public Service Board to recruit staff in anticipation of wastage. These matters are currently under detailed examination within my Department, in conjunction with the Public Service Board. If at a later stage I have further information that I can release to the honourable senator I shall be pleased to release it.

page 688

QUESTION

RECYCLING OF OIL

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources or, alternatively, the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development aware that, as reported in the Herald of 71 March 1977, Australia recycles only a small fraction of used automotive and other lubricating oils and that most of the used oil is either dumped or burned, often with adverse environmental effects? Is it a fact that many countries overseas are now introducing legislation to enforce re-refining of these lubricating oils, which results in a substantial saving of oil and significant avoidance of pollution? In view of Australia’s dependence upon imports of heavy lubricating oils, are any plans envisaged to encourage effective oil recycling?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question raises very important issues as Australia moves to the position of having limited known resources of oils and, as Senator Missen quite rightly says, as Australia is significantly dependent upon imports from countries belonging to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries for the heavier industrial oils. With regard to the second part of the honourable senator’s question, I am aware that overseas countries which are facing this serious and mounting energy crisis are recycling. I have read considerable literature indicating that that is so. I am not specifically aware of what is happening in Australia. Because the matter is important, I shall direct it to the attention of a number of Ministers rather than to one Minister. I fancy that 1 do not need to direct it to the attention of my colleague the Minister for Science in this chamber, there being significant scientific overtones to this matter. I accept the final premise in the question asked by Senator Missen that this matter is important because of the growing import burden and import costs. Therefore, I shall have the matter looked at.

page 688

QUESTION

NATIONAL WAGE DECISION

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer the Minister to promises made in 1975 by the present Prime Minister to retain Medibank in its existing form and to support the system of wage indexation. In reminding the Minister of those promises, I ask him: How does the Government feel about the comments made this morning by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on the Government’s economic strategy? Secondly, in the event of a projected increase in industrial unrest arising from the decision given this morning and in the light of the promises made in December 1975, what steps does the Government intend to take to deal with any increased industrial unrest which may arise from the decision?

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I have not yet had the opportunity to study the decision given this morning by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the comments which Senator Button mentioned. I will refer his question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for a considered reply.

page 688

QUESTION

REFERENDA

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister for Administrative Services in relation to the referendum concerning the Territories. As I understand the position, the arguments for Yes and the arguments for No on that referendum will not be posted to each elector in the Territories but will be directed only to each elector in the States. Having regard to the need and the desire of the Territories to participate in the arguments, will the Minister consider, either through the Commonwealth Electoral Office or through the Department of the Capital Territory, making those cases as widely available as possible in both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory so that the arguments can be understood for the purpose of the Territorians’ debate? I suggest that this could be done in post offices and public places, or through other means of that sort if it is not possible to use the mail service.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– That is a very interesting suggestion, but could I just say that I think the people in the Territories would well understand the Yes case. They would have no problem at all in understanding it, nor do I think they would wish to read it. I imagine they are all totally in favour of the Yes case. I do not know what benefit they would gain from the No case. I doubt very much whether the No case would convince any person in the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory that he ought not to be treated as a normal Australian citizen for the purpose of voting in referendums. After all, they pay taxes, they serve in the armed forces, they are entitled to be elected to the Parliament, they are entitled to all the normal civil rights of most Australians.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The right to be elected to Parliament is now under challenge.

Senator WITHERS:

-They can be elected for New South Wales, even though perhaps not for the Territory. I doubt very much whether the No case is going to convince anybody in either the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory, or indeed in any of the 6 States, that people in the Territories particularly ought to be ashamed of themselves and ought not to be looking for a vote. Being my normal courteous self to a colleague who disagrees, I am prepared to have a look at whether or not the No case on the Territories ought to be distributed. If the honourable senator feels so keenly that the matter ought to be debated in the Territories, I invite him to take himself and his colleagues who are opposed to Territorians having a vote and stump up and down the Northern Territory and around the Australian Capital Territory to see the sort of reception they get.

page 689

QUESTION

INQUIRY INTO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PAYMENTS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct by question to the Minister for Social Security and refer to the announcement by the Minister that the Government is to conduct an inquiry into unemployment benefit payments. I refer also to repeated claims by some Government backbenchers that a great many persons whom they tag as dole bludgers are wrongfully receiving and using taxpayers’ money. I now ask: Do the Minister and the

Government support the call by those Government backbenchers for a reduction in unemployment benefit at a time when an ever increasing number of Australians are forced through no fault of their own to depend on unemployment benefit to sustain themselves and their families? I further ask: Is the Minister aware that a survey of unemployment benefit paid in OECD countries revealed that Australia had by far the lowest level of income support when com pared with the United State* whose belle lit was equal to 52.2 per cent of iiic average wage, and the Netherlands with a benefit of 80 per cent of the average wage? Finally, does the Minister agree that Government supporters who make claims as to wrongful use of taxpayers’ money should be reminded that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It was announced yesterday by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and by me that an inquiry would be held into the unemployment benefit policy and administration. It was pointed out in that announcement that Ibr some 45 years there has been no review of the practice and procedures with regard to unemployment benefit. Wide terms of reference have been given to the committee which is to be chaired by Dr Myers of Victoria. The terms of reference do not relate to the narrow area mentioned by the honourable senator in his question but they do relate to the underlying concept and philosophy of the present system and the assessment of how appropriate these may be. They relate also to the level of benefits the community should provide to those who are unable to find work, including new entrants to the work force. They relate to the extent to which the applicant’s previous income and any other income the person or his family is currently receiving should limit the level of income support that would be paid in unemployment benefit. The Committee has been asked to look at whether arrangements should be made to adjust benefits and, if so, on what basis. It has been asked to look at the effective income support measures on the incentive of unemployed persons actively to seek employment and whether any limits should be set to levels and duration of payments and the conditions which should be met by individuals before they become eligible for income support.

The work of this Committee will be in a wide ranging area. I would hope that from the recommendations that we would expect to receive within about 3 months from Dr Myers’ committee we may have for the first time in a long time an examination of the whole strategy of the unemployment benefit system. I did see the survey of the OECD countries to which the honourable senator referred. I saw that there were some limits on the duration of payment of unemployment benefit income related to previous income. I saw some of the matters to which the honourable senator referred. We should remind ourselves that in this country there is a standard level of benefit for all pensions including unemployment benefit which approximates 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. If we examine that as related to a family, we would need to remember that support is added to that for a wife and for children. If we were to add all of those factors to the basic standard level that is applied we might find that we are more generous than some of the countries referred to by the honourable senator.

With regard to the last part of the question relating to my reminding members of the Government parties that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, I would think that that would apply to everyone in this country who makes assertions without being able to substantiate them. I believe that many allegations about people who are abusing the unemployment benefit system do bear investigation. I hope that this Committee will be the way in which that investigation can be undertaken and that it will provide an opportunity for those members in the community and those organisations in the community who have questioned the adequacy of the unemployment benefit administration and who have perhaps questioned our appeal system and a whole range of matters to come forward and put their views publicly before Dr Myers.

page 690

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: Has the Minister seen a report in the daily Press of this day of a near miss of a mid-air collision on 4 February between an Air France 707 jet and a Qantas 707 jet as the Qantas jet was going in to land at Manila Airport? Qantas spokesman, Mr Bob Cousins, is reported as saying that the incident was treated very seriously indeed by Qantas and that Qantas filed a protest, mainly because of the inadequacy of radar control at that airport. In contrast, a spokesman for the Philippine Civil Aeronautics Administration, Mr Jesus Singson, said the incident happened because of poor air traffic control judgment. As a passenger on that flight and remembering the great concern of the Qantas pilot and his demand to know the name of the officer in the Manila airport control at that time, I ask: In view of the apparent lack of concern by the Philippines Civil Aeronautics Administration, will the Minister investigate whether the official reply to the protest of Qantas was satisfactory? If it was not, will the Minister take up the matter to obtain a satisfactory answer and try to ensure that any defects in Manila airport control will be eliminated to make it safer for planes landing and taking off at Manila?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Like Senator Wood and other honourable senators I read in this morning’s Press what purported to be some viewpoints expressed concerning an alleged near miss at Manila airport between 2 aircraft, one being a Qantas aircraft. I read the assertions and allegations as Senator Wood has appropriately reported them. It is not possible for me to say whether they are factual. Senator Wood did not seek that information. Senator Wood sought to ensure that if there are any defects in the Manila airport, whether by way of electronic equipment or human inadequacies, they should be identified and some discussion should take place to see that they are rectified. I do not suggest in any way at all that such defects exist. We are dealing with another country which has a direct responsibility in this regard. I will bring the question to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Transport, and ask him to look at it.

It is important, in view of the dreadful calamity in the Canary Islands recently, that we should all, as nations and societies, search ourselves as to whether technically or in human terms we do the best we can to avoid accidents. As aircraft become more numerous and larger obviously the nature of the accidents becomes more horrendous. Having said that, and without in any way reflecting upon the need to do those things, let me draw attention, as I think it should be drawn at this time, to the magnificent record of flying safety throughout the world. Australia is one of the great leaders. Those who incidentally I say this without contention- reflect sometimes upon the nature of the International Air Transport Association agreements should note the figures produced for air safety and should recognise that the quality of delivery within IATA is significantly higher than elsewhere. I say that, because I think the publicneeds reminding that of all forms of transportation at this moment flying is still the safest: walking perhaps the most dangerous.

page 690

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE: STAFF CEILINGS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service matters. I ask: In view of the statement in Her Majesty’s Speech at the opening of this parliamentary session on 8 March that a Bill relating to freedom of information would be placed before the Parliament and bearing in mind statements by senior Ministers that the Budget deficit will have to be cut by another $2000m, thus affecting employment opportunities within the Commonwealth Public Service, is the Minister now prepared to make public the staff ceilings that have been imposed on the various departments of the Commonwealth Public Service?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I shall refer that question to the Prime Minister or the Minister assisting him in this matter.

page 691

QUESTION

VIDEOTAPE RECORDERS

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science. The Minister is probably aware that Japanese manufacturers are planning a thrust into the Australian electronics market late this year or early next year with their newly developed domestic videotape recorders. One Japanese company alone has stated that it is producing a quarter of a million of these new machines a year and will be moving into the Australian market shortly. Unfortunately, two different non-compatible tape cartridge systems have developed in Japan. In the interests of Australian consumers and knowing the excellent background studies that Australia has done in relation to the standard PAL colour television system and cassette tape recording systems, can the Minister investigate the two cartridge systems and support the Japanese Ministry of International Trade in trying to standardise the systems and so maintain uniformity in Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– The honourable senator raises an interesting and, I believe, important question. He is to be commended for detecting a possible problem for Australian consumers when videotape recorders come onto the Australian market and for raising the matter at this stage. He asks me to investigate the two cartridge systems to help establish uniformity in VTR systems in Australia. It might be useful if I inquired whether the Standards Association of Australia would look at the matter and consider putting out a VTR standard in that respect. I shall do this without delay. I think it is likely that my colleague, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, will also have an interest in this matter. I shall certainly refer the question to him.

page 691

QUESTION

WHALING QUOTAS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question which relates to the environment to Senator Carrick. He will appreciate that Senator Cotton, the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, is aware of the matter. I refer to an answer I received to Question No. 854 some time ago which stated in most emphatic terms that the Australian delegates to the International Whaling Commission did not support any increased quota on whale killing. Reports have been received indicating the contrary. An Australian delegate- I shall not name him as he is a public servant- did associate himself with amendments which sought to increase the quotas. I hand to the Minister a document giving voting attitudes which I should like him to probe because I feel the Senate should receive accurate answers.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I shall be happy to study the document and pass it to my colleagues Senator Cotton and the Minister for Primary Industry. The matter which Senator Mulvihill raised is an important one. We all ought to be very concerned with the conservation of this significant species. We all ought to recognise that past carelessness and irresponsibility by all countries in the world has led to the near extinction of whales. I understand that Senator Cotton has brought to the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry the question that Senator Mulvihill raised. When information is made available it will be supplied to Senator Mulvihill.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask a supplementary question. In the light of what the Minister has said I think he will be sympathetic to the idea that, at the next International Whaling Conference to be held in Canberra in June, we might extend to Australian conservation groups the right to attend as independent observers.

Senator CARRICK:

– I can understand the natural desire of all persons connected with conservation to have a more intimate knowledge of procedures as such. I am not aware whether the facilities or procedures will allow this. I am not even aware whether the conference to be held in Canberra will be in camera or in public. It is a matter of considerable public interest. I shall refer it to the Minister concerned.

page 691

QUESTION

ABORTIONS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that it has been alleged that health funds and Medibank have paid for 44 000 abortions in Australia in 1976 and that the total payment for these operations and associated anaesthetics amounted to $4m? In view of the extraordinarily large number of these tragic operations, which I am sure all Australians will agree are most traumatic to all concerned, can the Minister say what investigations are being undertaken to introduce alternative methods of contraceptive education since those presently undertaken obviously are proving most unsuccessful?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have been asked specific questions which are the responsibility of the Minister for Health. I will refer them to him to get a response on the matters raised.

page 692

QUESTION

TASMANIAN RAILWAYS: JOY REPORT

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. The Minister will be aware that the committee of inquiry into the Tasmanian rail system furnished in November last to the Minister for Transport, the Honourable P. J. Nixon, its findings and recommendations in a document known as the Joy report. Is the Minister aware that although the report is now available through the Australian Government Printing Service at a price of $5.45 a copy it has not yet been tabled in the Parliament? When will the report be tabled in the Parliament so as to allow the committee’s findings to be adequately debated? Will the Minister give an undertaking that the recommendations in this report, which in some instances are far reaching and seriously damaging in both an economic and social sense, will not be acted upon until a full and detailed study of their impact has been carried out? In the course of such a study will an opportunity be given to municipal authorities, employee organisations and others who are vitally interested in the subject to put forward their views?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware, as certainly are all Tasmanians and also, I imagine, most honourable senators, of the existence of what is known as the Joy report. I am fully aware of the significance of the need for study of that document and for dialogue in a public sense, including dialogue on the part of various interest groups named by the honourable senator. I was not aware that the report had not been tabled and therefore I was not aware until now that there has not been an opportunity for debate. I will put the matter to my colleague and seek from him information as to whether facilities can be made available for the tabling of the document and a subsequent debate, knowing the total and vital interest of the Tasmanian people in transport.

page 692

QUESTION

URANIUM

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources. Has the Minister noted the statement by Mr Dunstan, Premier of South Australia, that his Government is now opposed to the mining and export of uranium? Does this attitude conflict with the view of the Federal Opposition? Is it not a fact that not long ago the State Government was most anxious to establish a uranium enrichment plant in South Australia? Can the Minister indicate the extent of uranium deposits in that State and whether the development of such deposits will contribute to the State’s economy? Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to that part of Mr Dunstan ‘s statement which refers in these words to the dangers of nuclear waste:

One of the most dangerous aspects of uranium mining and export was the disposal of nuclear waste.

Is it correct that no nuclear wastes are produced as a result of the mining and processing of uranium? Does this statement not conflict with the conclusion of the Fox committee that there are no environmental problems associated with the processing and mining of uranium provided that proper management techniques are observed?

Senator Bishop:

– I take a point of order. I understand that the subject of Senator Jessop ‘s question is presently a matter for debate in the House of Representatives and accordingly the question should not be allowed. I seriously ask you to consider that proposal, Mr President, because the matter is presently before the House of Representatives.

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order is not upheld.

Senator JESSOP:

– Finally, is this not a clear demonstration of Mr Dunstan ‘s total ignorance of the subject?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think the honourable senator, by his last question, has answered some of his previous questions. I am advised by my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister, in the other place, that he has noticed Press reports today stating that Mr Dunstan announced yesterday that South Australia will not allow the mining and enrichment of uranium in South Australia and that Mr Dunstan opposes uranium exports. My colleague informs me that this is an extraordinary decision. It is regrettable that Mr Dunstan, like his Federal leader, is taking decisions before the debate on uranium, which is presently under way, is completed. This action by Mr Dunstan and his party is nothing more than a cynical attempt to pre-empt the uranium debate presently under way. For some considerable time Mr Dunstan has been studying the feasibility of establishing a major uranium enrichment industry in South Australia. Last year the Premier, Mr Dunstan, forwarded to the Deputy Prime Minister a copy of a report on uranium enrichment prepared by the South Australian Government which has clearly favoured uranium enrichment and has, to date, been working strenuously towards the development, exploitation and enrichment of uranium in South Australia. Mr Dunstan was quoted under banner headlines in the Press of 2 July last year as stating that he strongly favoured the early construction of a uranium enrichment plant in South Australia at a cost of $ 1,400m. The newspaper reports stated:

Mr Dunstan caught other Premiers hopelessly napping on Wednesday when I released a 2 year feasibility study for a uranium enrichment complex at Redcliff, near Port Augusta, which would double the value of Australian uranium exports from 500 million to 1000 million from present prices.

The Press report went on to state:

Mr Dunstan is hoping that the Federal Government will take up where the former Labor Minister for National Resources left off.

The report stated that Mr Dunstan said in Sydney yesterday that he had discussed the plans in detail with Mr Connor who canvassed Japanese opinion and found it favourable. The extraordinary reversal by Mr Dunstan is only another cynical illustration of Labor’s intention to preempt public debate on the Fox report and to prevent the Australian public from having the opportunity to take a balanced and considered view of uranium development.

page 693

QUESTION

REFERENDA QUESTIONS

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– Does the Minister for Administrative Services recall that in the interests of saving untold millions of taxpayers’ money a previous Liberal-National Country Party Government in 1965, under a most distinguished leader, pulped the Yes and No cases and cancelled the proposed nexus referendum which was faced with certain defeat? What is the last date available to the Government to cancel the current referendum?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– There is no reason for the Government to cancel the referendum merely because some people around Australia have differing views on differing questions. Even the opponents to the referendum cannot make up their minds as to which questions they oppose and which questions they do not oppose. If one group is united in the nation it is the group which supports the Yes case on the 4 questions. Even in this place there was opposition to only three out of the 4 questions. This fact occasionally appears to be overlooked. There is no opposition in the whole of the Parliament to one of those questions, which is about the retirement of Federal judges. If there is no opposition at all within the Parliament-

Senator Wood:

– Not much. You reversed. You turned your coat.

Senator WITHERS:

– I am getting advice. Mr President, as I recall, when you put the question on that matter not one honourable senator called for a division. If Senator Wood likes to look at the division list he will find that he voted in favour of that matter going to a referendum. In fact, as I understood the situation, there is no official No case on the retiring ages of judges because no person within the Parliament voted against that proposition. Therefore, under the Referendum Act, no person is entitled to present a No case. Why should the Government resile from one question which has total support within the Parliament, including the support of Senator Harradine, Senator Wood and Senator Wright? They support that proposition and I imagine that the three of them will be out on the campaign trail urging people to vote yes on at least that question. One could hardly imagine that in the space of a few weeks they would change their vote from yes to no. Therefore, what are we going to pulp? The Yes case is put shortly, simply, clearly, succinctly and very understandably.

Senator Missen:

– The No case is already pulped.

Senator WITHERS:

-Oh, is it? I am delighted that those who supported it have come to their senses. The Government intends to proceed with the referendums. I am certain that the Australian populace, which is renowned for exercising an enormous amount of common sense on great occasions, will vote yes in spite of the fact that here and there we have people who advocate that they should not. Queensland, and I suppose that it is at least being consistent, is opposed to the 4 questions. Some States are opposed to one, some States are opposed to more than one, while various people in the community have objections to one or the other. The 4 questions are so sensible and fair that I cannot conceive of the Australian electorate not voting for common sense.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I ask a supplementary question. I asked 2 simple questions: Does the Minister recall the previous occasion and what is the last date by which the Government could cancel the referendums? Can the Minister please give me a reply if he is aware of that last date?

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not recall the first instance. I do not know the last date but I will attempt to find out for the honourable senator what it is.

page 694

QUESTION

DEMARCATION DISPUTE

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister will be aware of the container demarcation dispute on Brisbane wharves between the Transport Workers Union of Australia and the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia which has held up all movements of containers through Brisbane and is estimated to have cost beef producers at least $500,000 a week since it commenced a month ago. Can the Minister say whether the present provisions of the conciliation and arbitration legislation are adequate to deal with demarcation disputes such as this between unions and, if the legislation is not adequate, are there any amendments which the Government can make to it to provide for the speedy settlement of such disputes when they arise?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The dispute to which the honourable senator refers is one which is having considerable effects on Australian export industries and particularly on beef producers. It certainly is giving the Government as well as beef producers and exporters a considerable amount of concern. The answer to the specific question asked by Senator Tehan is that there are powers and procedures under conciliation and arbitration legislation to deal with matters of this kind. However, this is a demarcation dispute and these have proved notoriously difficult to resolve. Already there has been a conference before Commissioner Mansini in regard to this dispute and there is to be a conference in Brisbane this morning before Commissioner Mansini and the parties have been summoned to be present. It is hoped that there will be a more co-operative attitude shown on this occasion by the Transport Workers Union of Australia whose actions and policies have been major factors in the dispute. If that is achieved there could be a speedy resolution of the dispute. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has the capacity to deal with industrial matters of this kind but such matters call for good will on the part of all concerned. Should today’s proceedings not be successful perhaps further action within the Commission will be necessary. However, in the light of what I have said, there is no legislative action contemplated at this stage because it is believed that the existing provisions of the legislation do provide a basis for settlement of this type of dispute.

page 694

QUESTION

DEMARCATION DISPUTE

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It follows upon the answer he has just given. I view of his statement about the Government’s concern about demarcation disputes, is it not a fact that, when his Party was in Opposition, it opposed moves by the then Labor Government to encourage amalgamation of unions in order to reduce or eliminate demarcation disputes? Is it not a fact that this Government’s policy is to oppose the encouragement of union amalgamations in order to maintain the conditions which encourage demarcation disputes for the purpose of a continuing confrontation with the trade union movement?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I can well recall the legislation that was introduced by Mr Lynch when he was the Minister for Labour and National Service on behalf of the previous coalition Government which was designed to facilitate union amalgamation under certain conditions. There is and has been dispute as to what those conditions should be. But I cannot accept the broad, general statements that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the attitude of the Government parties. However, I will refer the question he has raised to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whom I represent in the Senate.

page 694

QUESTION

COST OF PROCESSING MEDICAL BENEFITS

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, relates to a question asked yesterday in the Senate by Senator O ‘Byrne which contained a number of assertions about Medibank. It is reported on page 627 of Hansard that Senator O ‘Byrne asked: ls the Minister aware that the Health Insurance Commission reported that the average cost of processing- and he then goes on to give a number of figures. Has the Health Insurance Commission reported all the matters asserted by the honourable senator? Is it clear where Senator O ‘Byrne’s figures come from? If they have not been reported publicly, should Senator O ‘Byrne be invited to indicate to the Senate the basis for his assertion that the ‘Health Insurance Commission reported’they are his words- certain figures that he cited to the Senate as correct?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– 1 recall the question from Senator O ‘Byrne yesterday and I remember saying to him that I had no means of substantiating the figures that he gave. I have had the matter referred to the Minister for Health. As I understand it, the turnaround times that were mentioned in the earlier part of his question between the provision of medical services and the payment of claims appeared in the annual report of the Health Insurance Commission. However, I understand that the figures cited by the honourable senator with regard to the relative costs of processing the various types of claims do not appear in this report. The Minister for Health is unaware of the source of those figures. With regard to the last part of the question which asked whether Senator O ‘Byrne could be invited to indicate his source, I state that I have no strong attitude about that. If the honourable senator wishes to ask Senator O ‘Byrne matters of that nature, he can do so without my entering into such a request. I can state that the earlier figures he gave were cited in the Health Insurance Commission report and that I am unaware from where the latter information was obtained.

page 695

QUESTION

RANGER URANIUM ENVIRONMENTAL INQUIRY

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Some weeks ago I asked the Minister what steps the Government had taken to put into effect the recommendation of the Ranger uranium environmental inquiry that there be broad public discussion of the matters raised. The reply was that, apart from having made the report available to Government bookshops, the Government would be interested in any suggestions. In view of the fact that, as when I checked on Tuesday of this week, the Government’s bookshop in Melbourne was out of stock of the report, as there is only one Government bookshop in Victoria, as it is reported to me that many public libraries and libraries such as the Baillieu Library in Melbourne have no copies of the report and as its costs $4.50 a copy, will the Minister be amenable to asking Commissioner Fox to suggest groupings of people to prepare ‘pro’ and ami’ cases on uranium mining and have that material circulated with the referendum proposals?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The Fox report has been what could be termed, I suppose, a bestseller. 1 understand that at the moment another 5000 or 8000 copies of the report are about to go to the bookshops. There has been a reprint of it. I imagine that anybody who desires to obtain a copy of it shortly will have no difficulty in doing so. I shall pass on to my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, the second part of the question put by the honourable senator.

page 695

QUESTION

DAY CARE FOR CHILDREN

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask of the Minister for Social Security a question relating to day care of children. If refers to the different positions of people involved in offering family day care and those who own private day care centres. Is the Minister aware that certain anomalies in legislation are putting the private centres at a disadvantage compared with the family day care centres? Is she aware, for example, that no equipment subsidy is provided for private centres but is provided- in fact, everything is provided- for family day care institutions; that the needy parent subsidy applies in the case of children in family day care centres but not in the case of private centres; that no standards are set by State legislation for family day care centres- for example, not even a telephone is required to deal with an emergency; and that no safety regulations at present apply in the case of family day care centres but private centres and the community subsidised centres are covered? Does the Minister agree that to some degree this is as a result of there not being State legislation to cover family day care centres? Will she please take up these anomalies and will she indicate, if the States are unwilling to act, that the Commonwealth Government is prepared to look at these areas with a view to determining future planning in relation to family day care centres?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The programs for children’s services in my Department are subject to review at this stage. As I have indicated earlier, the Child Care Act is the subject of consultation. I have also indicated previously that subsidies for children in need in private day care centres can be the subject of discussion and, perhaps, decision. Different types of grants are given to family day care programs under the children services program; there are equipment grants and operational assistance grant. Family day care was an innovation of the former Government to provide a means of caring for a very limited number of children. Fewer than 5 children usually are cared for in this way and usually they are cared for more on a domesticbasis than on a basis that would be required in a commercial operation in a larger centre. I shall take note of the matters raised by the honourable senator and see whether any action can be taken that would comply with some of the matters she has raised for discussion.

page 696

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate or Minister representing the Treasurer aware that according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics gross domestic product fell during the December quarter, unemployment rose in the 3 months to the end of February, and instalment credit for retail sales fell sharply? In the light of these indicators, how can the Treasurer possibly claim that the Australian economy is well on the way to recovery?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I shall answer on behalf of Senator Cotton and, through him, the Treasurer. I have no personal knowledge as to whether such statements were made. As to the second point, that is, how could one claim that the Australian economy is well on the way to recovery, the facts are there for those who want to observe them. I remind the Senate that some 16 months ago when the Whitlam Goverment was swept from office by the judgment of the people, primarily because of its basic mishandling of the economy, industry and commerce were in ruins. Basically, businesses were nonprofitable and many were liquidating. The path was downhill. The primary task of an incoming government was to provide a sound base, firstly, to stop more companies from going into liquidation and, secondly, to return some measure of profitability to industry so that it could survive and so that it could increase its productivity and expand. If the honourable senators are looking for factors, I remind them that there has been a substantial return of modest profitability to a wide range of industries, although there is still some patchiness. I remind honourable senators that an inflation which was tending to run in the order of 18 per cent at the time the Whitlam Government went out has been substantially abated, although the journey is still one of major length. I remind honourable senators of the massive importance of tax indexation which has returned consumer spending to people, something that the Whitlam Government refused to do. I remind them of the investment allowances of the Government, which are now being taken up by industry to increase productivity and therefore to restore growth. 1 remind Senator Sibraa, if he needs an indicator, that what was negative growth in the economy at the time of the Whitlam Government has now become positive and relatively significant growth. There is no cause for complacency, but there is cause to take some real pride that in the space of 16 months a very solid journey has been made.

page 696

QUESTION

SALE OF CARAVANS: NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory. Is it a fact that caravans which were purchased as emergency housing after Cyclone Tracy are to be sold in lots of fifty? If it is a fact, does the Minister not agree that it will discriminate against the people of Darwin who may wish to purchase a single unit? Will the Minister agree to release sufficient caravans to meet local needs before offering the remainder to southern purchasers for transport out of the Territory?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I accept the honourable senator’s question on behalf of the Minister for the Northern Territory and will obtain an answer for him as quickly as possible.

page 696

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented and I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator may proceed.

Senator O’BYRNE:

-Senator Baume in a question this morning drew attention to a question I asked in the Senate yesterday. For the purpose of clarification, I think I should read that question. I said:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that the Health Insurance Commission reported that the average cost of processing assigned benefits by way of bulk billing was 34c per claim compared with 44c for each cash claim and $ 1 . 1 4 for each ‘pay doctor cheque ‘ claim?

The Minister admitted that that information was contained in the Health Commission report of June 1976.

Senator Baume:

– No, she did not.

Senator Withers:

– The turnaround figures were, but not those figures.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I am not talking about the second figures yet. The only mental exercise some of you people have is jumping to conclusions. I should like to draw attention to the second part of the question: ls the Minister also aware that the average delay in service and payment of claims is 89.2 days for claimant cheque claims, 57.7 days for cash claims and only 28.8 days for assigned benefit of bulk billing claims?

All those times are far too long, but nevertheless there is a very big discrepancy. I should like to inform Senator Baume and also the Minister that my authority for those figures was none other than Senator Grimes, who supplied the figures to the Minister. The Minister is aware of the figures, which were presented to her by Senator Grimes, and she has not contradicted them. The final pan of my question stated:

Do not these statistics suggest that the cost of processing medical benefit claims and the delay in payment of claims would increase greatly if bulk billing facilities for medical services were abolished?

I asked a normal question of the Minister. Although Senator Baume tried to imply that this was not so. the figures presented by Senator Grimes, to the Minister were substantial and able to be substantiated.

Senator Archer:

– What nonsense!

Senator O’BYRNE:

– They are quite true. I was therefore misrepresented when the honourable senator claimed that I had distorted the 1976 report of the Health Commission.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator BAUME:

– Yes. My only point in raising the question this morning was to test Senator O’Byrne’s assertions thai the Health Insurance Commission had reported certain things. Senator O’Byrne’s further explanation does nothing but support my contention that he had no basis for making that statement. The figures he put out were not contained in the Health Insurance Commission’s report and if they were private figures supplied by Senator Grimes, that in no way makes any of my imputations incorrect.

page 697

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of the honourable senators I present details of special flights by the Royal Australian Air Force for the period I September 1976 to 28 February 1977. Due to the limited number of schedules available at this time I have arranged for reference copies of the report to be placed in the Parliamentary Library and with the Senate Records Office.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 697

AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION COUNCIL

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the meeting of the Australian Education Council held at Hobart, Tasmania, in February 1977.

page 697

REUNION OF EAST TIMORESE FAMILIES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in the House of Representatives on 30 March 1977

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-I seek leave to make a statement on this subject.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The Opposition welcomes this decision in principle. I think there is no need to go into the links with the Timorese people which have been expressed in an eloquent fashion by many honourable senators in this chamber. A number of aspects of this statement should be commented upon because of their ambiguity. I think the first point is that a definition is overdue on the distinction between evacuees and refugees. This case does not apply in this situation. It can apply to other continents from which Australia has taken refugees and we could be confronted with that situation again. That is the first point I wish to make because people will be coming to Australia from East Timor who probably have Portuguese passports. Secondary problems will arise in that area. Another point about which there is some trepidation is the indexing of names of relatives of Indonesian evacuees. To some extent, we will have to kowtow to the Indonesian authorities. I would hate to believe that some people who may have been active in the cause of Timorese independence could be confronted with administrative road blocks. I know that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) has made reference to collating names of relatives and the obligations that they will face in meeting our criteria. It is a matter about which I know there is some concern.

I am pleased that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) is taking an interest in this statement. My colleagues Senator Primmer and Senator Robertson and I raised a secondary problem earlier when Timorese residents came to Australia. In one family there may be 4 people of working age and another person who is denned as a septuagenarian who would be in receipt of some form of superannuation from the Portuguese Government. As Senator Guilfoyle would know, the incomes of those people say, between the ages of 25 and 35 are lumped together when assessing social security rights of another member of the same family. Many of these men and women who came here were not backward in accepting menial tasks. I think those of us who were on the Estimates Committee which inquired into the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations were aware of the high turnover of people in these jobs because the salaries are not very high but the Timorese have struck as such tasks. The point I take up with Senator Guilfoyle is that in cases like this, which will be intensified with family reunions, we ought to have a clear cut understanding with the Portuguese Government that if people come to Australia who are more than 65 years of age their cheques will continue to flow from Lisbon or, conversely, if that is not satisfactory I think we should examine further the formula whereby we lump together three or four people in a family who may be working as domestics and whose salaries are not very high. They are the fears I hold. In principle we are happy to pay a debt to people whose links in the Second World War were very close to Australia. I hope that the other points I mentioned can be fed back to the Minister. I think they will recur when specific questions are asked.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GEORGES:

– I have raised certain questions on the position of Timorese refugees and the stance that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has been taking on their entry into this country. I must admit that I am puzzled about the conflict between the figures given on the one hand and figures given in answer to questions on notice. We receive the assurance from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) that special criteria would be laid down for these people. At this stage 1 put the case that the special criteria ought to be farreaching. There seems to be some determination on the part of the Immigration Department to classify these people in terms of refugees and in terms of migrants. I am not certain that we ought, in the circumstances which prevail, make this separation.

I think that since there is so much concern about what is happening in East Timor in this country and that our consciences on both sides of the House are troubled we should be looking at these people with the utmost sympathy and we should be doing our utmost to provide entry to all concerned. I do not go so far as to put any criteria of suitability or employability on this. I am saying that we ought not to be imposing these limitations at all and that there is a special case for the East Timorese. That case has been put in the Senate on several occasions.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– This is not a continental refugee camp.

Senator GEORGES:

– I accept the interjection. I accept it so that it goes down in the record.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I meant it to go in the record. It will go there because you have responded to it.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes, I responded to it possibly instinctively and also because it will serve a purpose. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has now taken a position in relation to the Timorese which I believe is regrettable. The Timorese are very much in close relationship with the Australian people. I imagine that several honourable senators on the Government side will put a case that the Timorese ought to be considered differently.

I do not think many people realise that I am possibly the oldest Territorian in this place, not excluding Senator Robertson and Senator Kilgariff. I was born in Darwin. I know that there has been for many years a close association between the East Timorese and the people of the Territory. There has been continual communication. There has been a record on the part of the Timorese concerning the defence of Australians in East Timor. There has also been a record of opposition by the East Timorese to the Japanese invasion. I am saying that we cannot place the East Timorese in the same category as refugees from South Vietnam. I say that without in any way denying the rights of the South Vietnamese to have some sort of sympathetic consideration. The East Timorese are in an entirely different category for the reasons that I have given. I hope that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, on reconsideration, might accept that these people are in a special category. Not many people are involved. I think the number of applications- this information was provided in an answer to a question- was 1 164.

Special circumstances require special consideration. In view of the small numbers we should be able to take all these people without making it difficult for them in any way. I would be encouraged by some support on the part of Government senators. I know that there is a latent support but the politics of the situation has influenced Government senators to remain silent. I know the difficulties that they face. I have been in that position, feeling quite hostile about what my Government was doing in certain areas but having to remain silent for a period. But with this problem which is a very human problem I think that we ought to take a bipartisan view. We ought to be freely expressing our support for humane consideration of the East Timorese people who seek to come to Australia.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-by leave-I had intended to say a few words in respect of this statement. I am not speaking in response to Senator Georges but my comments will probably satisfy his desire for a response. I am a little concerned at some of the details of the statements which have been made. I am concerned that a legalistic or definitional type of approach may be adopted to the people who are to be admitted, whether they be Timorese refugees, evacuees or whatever expression is used. I think it will be unfortunate if the criteria are applied in some narrow way. I accept the proposition that we have special responsibilities in regard to the Timorese refugees and evacuees in Australia and Portugal. I hope that there will be quicker processing of the applications being made. I hope that the immigration criteria will not be confined merely to what may be described as the close family relationship criteria which we use in respect of so many other migrants to this country. I hope that these criteria will be interpreted in a wider fashion because of the responsibilities which people will have for elderly members of their family who may be more distant relations than a mother or a child.

We should look at the whole matter very sympathetically. I believe that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Mackellar) is doing so. I hope we take in a substantial number of people from Portugal where my belief is that they are living in poor conditions. I have received letters and asked the Minister questions about this matter. I hope to receive answers to them. I hope that the Minister will not adopt the policy he has announced in a legalistic or limited way.

page 699

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I present the eleventh report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 699

PLAN OF LAYOUT OF THE CITY OF CANBERRA

Ministerial Statement

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · Victoria · NCP/NP

– by leave- During June 1975 the Senate considered a variation to the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs to include the Molonglo Arterial, as recommended by the Joint Select Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. While this matter was before the Senate the Academy of Science expressed concern about one element of that road, namely the off-take for the Western Distributor. Consequently the Senate passed a motion moved by Senator Steele Hall, that the variation to the city plan should be approved, but it requested: the Minister for Urban and Regional Development to initiate a review of the site of the off-take for the Western Distributor to ensure the preservation of the environmental amenity of the area.

Whilst the Senate did not request a formal resonse to its motion, I wish to inform the Senate that such a review has been undertaken, and the Academy of Science has been involved in the investigations.

It has been determined by the National Capital Development Commission that the 1975 site for the off-take is the most suitable having regard to all the relevant factors and interests. The Western Distributor is not required in the foreseeable future with the result that the existing road system can be upgraded to accommodate the forecast traffic flows to and from the Molonglo Arterial. The Academy’s aspirations to develop a precinct of science academies is accordingly not threatened and a mutually acceptable engineering solution has been found to afford reasonable environmental protection to the existing Academy buildings.

The Academy has been given assurances that, if any other solution is required in the longer term, the existing and prospective precincts of the Academy will be preserved so as not to constrain future building development. Any future traffic arrangements will be worked out in consultation with the Academy. In regard to the protection afforded under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 the National Capital Development Commission has offered to assist in the development of a master plan for the Academy precinct area, in the event that an enlaged Academy precinct is agreed to by the Government or relevant authorities.

page 700

TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION BILL 1977

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill Tor an Act to make provision for and in relation to the establishment of a Tertiary Education Commission.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator Carrick:
Minister for Education · New South Wales · LP

( 12.27) - I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to establish a Tertiary Education Commission to develop and recommend policies as the basis of Commonwealth financial support for institutions in the whole post-school sector of education throughout Australia. The Commission will be concerned with balanced and co-ordinated development and encouragement of diversified opportunities in post-school education. The new Commission will play a significant role in shaping and influencing the future character of post-school education in Australia. To achieve this goal the three existing education commissions- the Universities Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education and the Technical and Further Education Commission- will be replaced by 3 Councils of the same names. These Councils will preserve much of the essential qualities of the existing commissions while working with and being subject to the co-ordinating functions and authority of the new Tertiary Education Commission.

The title of the new Commission is a matter which has been given careful consideration and, in the interests of avoiding awkward and negative names such as ‘post-secondary’ or ‘postschool’ commission, the title ‘Tertiary Education Commission’ has been adopted. This decision implies, for the purposes of the Bill, a change in the meaning of the term ‘tertiary education’ as it has generally been used in Australia. ‘Tertiary education’ has normally been used to include only those studies which require, as a minimum entry level, completion of the full secondary school course; that is university and college of advanced education courses almost exclusively. For the purposes of this Bill ‘tertiary education’ will also encompass the wide range of courses in the technical and further education area. The terms ‘primary, secondary and tertiary education’ will thus be used for the Commonwealth’s purposes as purely descriptive terms, with ‘tertiary education’ comprising university education, advanced education and technical and further education. I believe that this is a tidier scheme of nomenclature than the present usage, and it is more consistent with international statistical usage.

The decision to establish a new commission was taken in pursuance of the Government’s preelection education policy which drew attention to the problems of co-ordinatiOn between the existing commissions. The question of what form the new commission should take has been under careful examination for some time, and has been the subject of consultations with a wide range of interested parties. The new arrangements were discussed by me with the State Ministers for Education earlier this year and in the process of drafting the present Bill comment has been obtained from State authorities and from people eminent within the ‘post-secondary education sector, including the chairmen of the existing commissions. All political parties accept the need for co-ordination in the tertiary area. The questions of appropriate mechanisms and the involvement or otherwise of technical and further education constitute points of variance.

The Tertiary Education Commission represents a major advance on earlier proposals for 3 main reasons: Firstly, it will include the important area of technical and further education; secondly, it recognises the distinct nature and status of each of the 3 post-school sectors; and thirdly, it obliges the Commission to consult with appropriate State authorities in the performance of its functions. To exclude technical and further education from the co-ordinating mechanism would be to fail to appreciate the inevitable working interface between colleges of advanced education and institutions of technical and further education and the continuous need to rationalise functions between the two. It would ignore also the need to upgrade the role of technical and further education in the postschool sector. It is the Government’s firm intention to devote special attention to technical and further education, which has been for too long the area of least consideration to governments in post-school education, particularly in the allocation of resources. The new Commission will have an important role in the development of these resources and of co-operative arrangements with the States for the support of technical and further education.

To assist the new Commission in the performance of its functions, the legislation will provide for a separate Universities Council, Advanced Education Council and Technical and

Further Education Council, which will be statutory bodies. The status of these Councils will give recognition to the special requirements of each sector. The Councils will have the right of investigation and will be expected to conduct detailed negotiations with institutions and authorities. They are to be regarded as important and authoritative sources of advice and contact in their own sector and their views will be made known both to the Minister and to the Commission. The rolling triennial reports of the Commission will incorporate in full the reports of the Councils to the Commission. Clause 37 of the Bill provides for the right of each Council, in addition to responding to requests from the Minister or the Commission, to inquire into and advise the Minister upon whatever matters it wishes within its own sector of education. Wherever a Council gives advice to the Minister it is to make that advice available to the Commission also. It is important for the future quality of education that those essentially distinctive and authentic characteristics of the various types of tertiary institutions should be preserved and developed, while recognising that the nature of individual units will change and evolve and the need for new-type institutions will emerge. The existence of the 3 Councils in association with the coordinating Commission will provide these opportunities.

The Tertiary Education Commission will have a most important task of co-ordination across the whole area of tertiary education. It will work closely with authorities in the States and will cooperate with them in promoting effective use of resources. Within the Commission’s structure, the inter-relationship between the Commission and its Councils is supported by the interlocking provisions of clause 9 dealing with reports by the Commission and clause 37 covering advice from the Councils. The Commission will consist of a full-time chairman, 3 other full-time members and 5 part-time members. A full-time commissioner will be chairman of each Council. The 5 other members of the Commission will be parttime and will be drawn from widely representative sections of the community as a balance to the specialist interests of the full-time members. Each Council will comprise, in addition to its chairman, up to 8 part-time members. These arrangements will assist the Commission in its coordinating role, while at the same time enabling each Council to have a significant measure of freedom to decide and act within its own area of specialisation.

I emphasise the point made in clause 9( 1 ) that the Commission will be obliged to consult with the relevant State authorities in the performance of its functions and is expected to consult with other Commonwealth and State education bodies. The Government will be paying particular attention to the development of co-operative arrangements with the States. We are well aware of their responsibilities in the whole education field and of their importance to the achievement of rationalisation and co-ordination of the funding of post-school education. Clause 44(5) of the Bill ensures in particular that the States must be consulted by the Commission before it makes recommendations as to whether a particular institution should be classified as a university or college of advanced education for the purposes of the Act. Honourable senators will be aware that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has written to the 6 State Premiers inviting the States to participate at the education Ministers level in detailed discussions with the Commonwealth with the aim of achieving a more effective co-partnership in the whole field of education. Such talks would include the development of any further co-operative measures among Commonwealth and State agencies which might be necessary to strengthen the functioning of the Tertiary Education Commission and its components.

I am confident that the new arrangements will permit a truly co-ordinated approach to the funding by the Commonwealth of post-school educational institutions and will provide effective means for preventing wasteful duplication and overlap. The new Commission will maintain close contact with the Williams Committee on Education and Training which is currently inquiring into the future goals of education in terms of human fulfilment and career development. That Committee is expected to report to the Government next year. Its findings and recommendations will be of particular significance to the future work of the Commission. Pending that report, the Commission will have to pursue some more urgent inquiries of its own. for example the use of resources for teacher education. The Williams Committee will be kept informed about significant developments.

The Government wishes to establish the new Commission as soon as possible so that the benefits it will introduce can be applied to consideration of the post-school programs for the rolling triennium 1978-80. An interim committee of the 3 existing Commissions is already operating to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements soon after the Bill is passed. The Tertiary Education Commission will have the final responsibility for recommending programs for the 1978-80 rolling triennium within guidelines which the Government will issue in the near future. Considerable thought has already been given by the Government to the membership of the new Commission and its Councils, and I expect that the new appointments will be made by the Governor-General and announced as soon as the Bill has been proclaimed. In the meantime arrangements are being made for short term extensions of currently expiring appointments to existing commissions. I hope that the Bill ‘s passage through the Parliament will be a speedy one, and I commend it to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 702

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

This Bill makes special long service leave provisions for New South Wales technical teachers who join the Commonwealth Teaching Service between 31 December 1976 and 1 April 1977 and who were engaged in full-time teaching duties in a technical institution in the Australian Capital Territory. Honourable senators will recall that in 1976 the Government decided that the teaching staff of the technical colleges in the Australian Capital Territory should be employed under the Commonwealth Teaching Service legislation. Provision for their employment was made in the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1976.

The Bill allows former members of the New South Wales teaching service who were teaching in Australian Capital Territory technical institutions in 1976 and who elected to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service after 31 December 1976 and before 1 April 1977 to preserve their long service leave conditions that applied under State legislation in force immediately prior to their joining the Commonwealth Teaching Service and to treat future teaching service as if it were State service for the purposes of that legislation. It also allows the teachers to choose between the better of those provisions just mentioned and those provided for in the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 including future amendments to that Act. It does not confer eligibility for improvements brought about by changes in State law after the teachers joined the Commonwealth Teaching Service on 31 March 1977 nor does it provide any special benefits for a teacher who joins the Commonwealth Teaching Service after that date. Members of the New South Wales teaching service who taught at technical institutions in the Australian Capital Territory during 1976 and who elect to join the Commonwealth Teaching Service after 1 April 1977 will be subject to the normal provisions of the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976. The Bill contains provisions affecting technical teachers similar to provisions in respect of primary and secondary school teachers who transferred to the Commonwealth Teaching Service in similar circumstances at the end of 1 973.

I believe that this legislation should be given speedy passage by the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 702

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That so much of Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Douglas McClelland on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition moving a motion relating to the order of business on the notice paper.

Order of Business

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That after 8 p.m. intervening general business be postponed until after the consideration of Order of the Day No. 8 relating to the appointment of a select committee on matters relating to East Timor.

Withdrawal of Notice of Motion

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

This morning I gave notice of a motion for a reference of the matter of food prices to a standing committee. In view of the motions just agreed to I seek leave of the Senate to withdraw General Business Notice of Motion No. 6 standing in my name.

Notice- by leave- withdrawn.

page 703

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I move:

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 703

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Motion (by Senator Douglas Mcclelland)- by leave- agreed to:

That having considered the recommendation contained in the report to the Senate in October 1 976 of Estimates Committee A, the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for consideration and report:

Public Service computer use.

Sitting suspended from 1.46 to 2.15 p.m.

page 703

ACADEMIC SALARIES TRIBUNAL

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 I table a copy of the determination and report of the Academic Salaries Tribunal in relation to annual leave bonus payments due to academic staff in 1977.

page 703

LAW COURTS (SYDNEY) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition does not oppose the Law Courts (Sydney) Bill. The history of this matter has been set out very fully in the second reading speech of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack). It is a matter that has been going on for some years, in the time of the Liberal Government of Mr McMahon, under the Labor Government and again under the present Government. In indicating that we do not oppose the Bill, I draw the attention of the Senate to a speech made yesterday by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr Uren) in relation to the Bill. He simply made the point, in connection with Commonwealth buildings throughout Australia, that perhaps more attention should be given by governments to the impact of those buildings on the environment in which they are situated and also to the quality of those buildings. It is a point which is not strictly relevant to the terms of this Bill. But I think it is a point which was made very well and which should be borne in mind by the Government in its consideration of future legislation and with regard to future policy considerations of this kind. Apart from that comment, as I indicated we do not oppose the Bill. We hope it has a speedy passage.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I thank Senator Button and the Opposition for their assistance in giving a speedy passage to the Bill. Senator Button adverted to the comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place (Mr Uren). I will certainly read them and draw them to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 703

CRIMES (FOREIGN INCURSIONS AND RECRUITMENT) BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition opposes the Crimes (Foreign Incur:sions and Recruitment) Bill. I should indicate at the outset that, in expressing that opposition to it, the burden of the Opposition’s criticism will be taken by my colleagues Senator James McClelland and Senator Wheeldon both of whom have far more experience of foreign incursions than I have. I believe that, for that reason, they are much more capable of dealing with the subject matter than I would be. In saying that the Opposition opposes the Bill, I draw the attention of the Senate to numerous statements made by the Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock) and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Those statements, which have been referred to publicly, have expressed the view that it is undesirable for Australians to engage in foreign mercenary activities. This view has been expressed by both Ministers at various times. In a sense, it points to the criticism which the Opposition makes of the Bill.

When I say that the Opposition opposes the Bill, I should point out that we are not saying that Australia will be worse off as a result of having this legislation. In fact, we think that the situation with which the Bill seeks to deal will result in this country being better off than it has been in the past. It will avoid all those situations which occurred in the period of the last Liberal Government when Croatian terrorists were training at Healesville and other places. Of course, that was a source of embarrassment from time to time even to Ministers in that Government. Certainly, it was a source of embarrassment to the Australian people as a whole.

Senator Lajovic:

– And to Senator Murphy.

Senator BUTTON:

-As Senator Lajovic has raised the point, I state that I thought Senator Murphy’s incursion, if I can use that word again, into that area of political activity in Australia had a very salutary effect on the sorts of activities to which I referred.

Senator Missen:

– His incursion into ASIO?

Senator BUTTON:

– Of course, as much as Senator Missen might attempt to divert the thrust of that remark, if I may use the word ‘thrust’ in the context of a debate on incursions, by reference to ASIO, the point I seek to make to the Senate is quite clear. Senator Murphy’s activities were salutory and something of that kind was necessary in terms of establishing the position of the Australian Government in relation to that type of activity in Australia. For the benefit of Senator Lajovic I say that I am making no comments about the sorts of political judgments which might be made about that sort of activity. My comments are simply about the general undesirability of any activity of that kind taking place in this country. Of course, in a sense, that is the purpose of this legislation.

In the light of statements by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, the Opposition really feels that the Bill does not go far enough. I will illustrate that criticism in a very simple way. The main purpose of the Bill is to prevent the training and recruitment of intended mercenaries in Australia who might be engaged subsequently in incursions against foreign governments. I think the point is well made that it would be more desirable if the Bill were directed a little more widely to preventing incursions or the recruitment and training for such incursions whether or not they be against the government of another country. I think the point can be well illustrated by giving one example. Supposing honourable senators opposite for reasons of ideology and expediency suddenly became attracted to the political ideology of President Amin of Uganda and decided that a contingent from the Senate would be trained in the Woden Valley and sent to Uganda to support the government of Uganda. I would have thought that while that sort of activity may have appealed to honourable senators on the Government side, it would become something of an embarrassment for the people of Australia. For that reason we make the very simply point that activities of this kind generally, whether they be against governments or whether they be in support of governments, should be proscribed by the legislation.

The other point I want to make very briefly relates to the provisions of clause 9 of the Bill which, as I read it, allows the Attorney-General to specify circumstances, as it were, in which the provisions of the Bill would not apply. That seems to me to be a very dangerous activity. It seems to me that governments have to make decisions about whether they want to interfere in the affairs of other countries by way of armed incursions and that it is the responsibility of governments to do that as governments and as elected representatives of the Australian people. I think it would be undesirable for this provision to be exercised by an Attorney-General in any government in any circumstances which I can at the moment foresee. So some criticism of that provision of the Bill is offered.

As I said, the burden of the debate on this issue, about which some of my colleagues feel very passionately no doubt, will be taken by Senator James McClelland and Senator Wheeldon. I do not want to dwell too much on the matter except to reiterate something of our past experience in relation to it. There is the past experience of Katanga, Angola and, more recently, Rhodesia. No doubt Australians have been involved in each of those countries, although they may not necessarily have been trained or recruited in this country. I suspect that both sides of the Parliament desire that the sorts of activities that went on in those countries should not be allowed to be repeated in this country.

I see that Senator Wheeldon, who has very strong views on this, has entered the chamber. I believe he is the author of a thesis relating to it. I think the thesis was called ‘The Influence of von Schlaffen on the Soviet Military Strategy in the 1950s’.

Senator Wheeldon:

– It was von Schlieffen. I did not write the thesis; I only read it.

Senator BUTTON:

– I apologise to the honourable senator; I did him a grave injustice. I think it was his criticism of the thesis on the influence of von Schlieffen on the Soviet military strategy in the 1950s which I read. I misinterpreted that and I apologise to him. I believe Senator Wheeldon has an important contribution to make in this debate in view of his previous experience and writings on the subject.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I rise to support the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Bill. I believe it is a Bill which we need and which we ought to introduce. It deals with a problem which has not been dealt with in any satisfactory way by legislation before. I shall refer to some of the matters that Senator Button mentioned. Firstly, I think we should appreciate that this Bill has some origins in reports produced in England on the Foreign Enlistments Act, which I think, has been in operation since 1870. This Act has been found to be quite ineffective. I think I am right in saying that there has not been a successful prosecution under it.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Why was there such a careful Bill?

Senator MISSEN:

– I must apologise to the honourable senator, but I do not know what was in the minds of members of the British Government in 1 870. But certainly that Bill has not had a very effective operation. Consequently, a committee was appointed in Great Britain under the chairmanship of Lord Diplock. This Committee made a very interesting and satisfactory report which suggested that further legislation was required. I believe our Government has relied to a considerable extent on the operations and report of that Committee- I commend that report to the reading of honourable senators- in preparing the Bill which is now before us. Very much as a result of incursions or activities by mercenaries in Angola and other places the Committee was directed to inquire into and report upon the recruitment of mercenaries. It came to conclusions with which I think some members of the Labor Party in the other place would not agree, that is, that governments could not proscribe or censor the activities of citizens who chose, of their own free will, to become mercenaries in a particular place or to join an army somewhere. The Committee concluded that this was something which we could not control.

Senator Wheeldon:

– They need not be mercenaries either; they could be volunteers.

Senator MISSEN:

– Yes, as the honourable senator rightly says, the only requirement is that they are serving elsewhere. The word ‘mercenary’ has a ring of being unsatisfactory- that people are being paid to serve and are doing so only for money. I was including people who would be being paid for what they were doing but who perhaps were serving in a good cause, or those who choose voluntarily to serve. One might use as an example those who in 1973 went to defend Israel when it was under attack. These were people who had a warm attachment to Israel or had a Jewish background and consequently chose to do those things. It is impossible to place citizens under an obligation which prevents them from choosing, of their own free will, to serve in some force or to assist some other government. I do not think it is right that we should attempt to do so. This was, in fact, the burden of part of the report of Lord Diplock. Paragraph 6 of the report states:

It is tempting to seek a definition of ‘mercenary’ which would differentiate between volunteers such as these and the professional free-lance fighter; but we do not think this is practicable in a definition intended to be used in legislation for the purpose of distinguishing persons whose recruitment or enlistment is to be subject to control from other persons.

The report goes on to state in paragraph 7;

So if enlistment as a mercenary or the recruitment of others for that purpose is to be controlled by legislation, any definition of mercenaries which required positive proof of motivation would, in our view, either be unworkable or so haphazard in its application as between comparable individuals as to be unacceptable.

So the British Government certainly did not try to restrict or deny its people the right to serve as mercenaries or volunteers in other countries.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– We do.

Senator MISSEN:

-No, in this Bill we do not make that distinction. Paragraph 13 of the report relates to individual freedom in the public interest. The Committee discussed whether there would be a risk of the British Government having to repatriate its mercenaries or citizens who become involved in wars in other countries. It did not find that this provided a reason for the Government to prohibit that type of activity. Paragraph 1 3 of the report states:

We do not think that the possibility that irrecoverable expense may be incurred in repatriation could justify prohibition of the enlistment of mercenaries. If this were a sufficient ground for preventing United Kingdom citizens from going abroad, anyone who was poor could be debarred from travelling.

It is almost impossible to determine why people go abroad, what they are doing there and, of course, to prove their intention. Paragraph 1 5 of the same report states:

To prevent an individual from carrying on any particular activity involves some restriction on his freedom particularly if it affects his livelihood, but the curtailment of freedom involved in the prohibition of what can at most be an intermittent activity of recruiting mercenaries in the United Kingdom is a minor one and does not require a high degree of danger to the public interest in order to justify it.

In other words, a different situation exists when people are recruited inside their own country for certain purposes. Something can be done about that. The report goes on to state:

On the other hand although, as will later appear, we do not think there are any means by which it would be practicable to prevent a United Kingdom citizen from volunteering while he is abroad to serve as a mercenary and from leaving the United Kingdom to do so, we should regard any attempt to impose such a prohibition upon him by law as involving a deprivation of his freedom to do as he will which would require to be justified by a much more compelling reason of public policy than the prohibition of active recruiting of mercenaries within the United Kingdom.

It is in accordance with those general principles that this Bill makes a very considerable distinction between some vague and general prohibition of mercenaries and certain restrictions confined specifically to Australian citizens involved in incursions by going abroad and taking certain steps in another country which are detailed in the Bill. That on one side and the recruitment of persons for that purpose in Australia on the other are the prohibitions that this Bill seeks to impose. Perhaps one should look for a moment at clause 6 of the Bill to realise what is the nature of that prohibition. It states:

A person shall not-

a ) enter a foreign country with intent to engage in a hostile activity against the government of that country; or

engage, in a foreign country, in a hostile activity against the government of that country.

I know «hat Senator Button and his colleagues in the House of Representatives took the view that it should not be just activities against a government, but it is very hard to see what the prohibition should be extended to if it went beyond that and included activity against the opposition in the country or some personal vendetta in the country or some activity of that sort. I think it would be very difficult to say where it would go.

The Bill goes on to define a person who will be affected as an Australian citizen or a person, not being an Australian citizen, who ordinarily is resident in Australia, or a person who at any time during the period of one year immediately preceding the act was present in Australia for a purpose connected with that act. The Bill is not limited to Australian citizens but covers people who have been here within our jurisdiction, enjoying the hospitality of Australia, and go from here to engage in a hostile activity against another government. Sub-clause (3) of clause 6 defines the nature of hostile activity which we would see as being undesirable for people emanating from our shores. That sub-clause states in part:

  1. the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the foreign country;
  2. causing by force or violence the public in the foreign country to be in fear of suffering death or personal injury;
  3. causing the death of, or bodily injury to, a person who-

  4. is the head of state of the foreign country; or

    1. holds, or performs any of the duties of, a public office of the foreign country; or
  5. unlawfully destroying or damaging any real or personal property belonging to the government of the foreign country.

Those are pretty serious activities, and if a person goes from our shores with that purpose in mindof course, it is something which has to be proved; it is not presumed to be the purpose- then it is proscribed by this Bill.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– We have got thought police in Australia at last, have we?

Senator MISSEN:

– I do not think it is a question of thought police. It has to be known; it has to be proved. It is a matter of law, and the ordinary obligations of proving beyond reasonable doubt apply to people who are proposing to do this.

I suggest that in this period of very difficult international affairs, if we are to have our citizens proceeding abroad, as we know some have done in the past, to enter other countries and there to create havoc, the taking of the law into their own hands when we are trying to create some sort of international law throughout the world is not the satisfactory answer. It is not satisfactory for us, no matter how me might deplore absolutely the regime of General or Field Marshal Amin, or whatever he is called, that we should find ourselves actually allowing an incursion from this country against him. Those activities, and the hard cases particularly, prove that one should not encourage the sort of breakdown of international law which is involved in leaving this country to overthrow the government of another country.

In regard to this Bill, one must say that it does not effect an invasion of liberties so far as the community is concerned. There is clearly no restriction on the discussion of international affairs or of attitudes towards people. The Bill is so phrased that it is incursions, firstly, that are prohibited. Clause 7 refers to doing acts preparatory to creating the offences under clause 6, and deals with accumulating, stockpiling or otherwise keeping arms, explosives, etc., for that purpose. Those are matters which must be shown to be the purpose.

The Bill also goes on in detail to prohibit training or drilling for this purpose, or allowing oneself to be trained or drilled for the purpose, and at all stages it is necessary to prove the purpose of the person who is doing these things. The giving of money or goods for the purpose, the receiving of moneys for the purpose, and being an owner or occupier of premises for the purpose of helping in the commission of the offences are again restricted by the fact that the purpose must be known and nothing is presumed. Of course, the Bill prohibits the recruiting of persons in Australia for this purpose. They can go abroad if they want to and serve with other forces. That is their decision and they take the risk. But if in fact some person here is recruiting people for that purpose, our relations with governments which we recognise as being in existence and to which we have ambassadors, in most cases, are thereby endangered. We do endanger ourselves by being regarded as a country hostile to the existence of that government when some people come forward from this country or are recruited from this country or they advertise for recruitment, and the Bill will now prohibit that.

There are 3 safeguards to which I draw the attention of the Senate. Clause 9(2) states:

If the Minister has, by instrument signed by him and published in the Gazette, declared that it is in the interests of the defence or international relations of Australia to permit the recruitment in Australia, either generally or in particular circumstances, of persons to serve in or with a specified armed force . . .

The sub-clause goes on in further detail. That provision, of course, requires the Minister to make a specific determination in those cases which may well arise where we believe that the defence of that country should permit recruitment. One would hope that that will not arise, but if there were such circumstances then the Bill does provide the power by a declaration and statement, which will be known, that it is the belief of the Government that the defence of the particular country is something that should permit recruitment.

I think I am right when I say that an amendment will be moved to clause 10. An amendment is also proposed on behalf of the Government in regard to clause 9 to the effect that when such a declaration is made it should be laid on the table of the Parliament so that it is known and can be disallowed or dealt with by the Parliament if it does not agree. As I understand it, that was the arrangement which the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) made and indicated when he was concluding the debate in the House of Representatives.

An additional safeguard included in the Bill is the one which states that proceedings under the Act shall not be instituted except with the consent in writing of the Attorney-General. The clause goes on to include a person authorised by the Attorney-General, but I believe that that will be subject to another amendment. In fact, there will have to be a specific decision by the Attorney-General before someone is prosecuted under this Bill, and there may be special circumstances which can be taken into account. If people appear to have disobeyed the provisions of this Bill but there are good reasons for that, then a prosecution need not go forward if it appears undesirable to the Attorney-General.

In relation to the third protection, one finds quite heavy penalties proposed for the various offences under the Act. Overall, there are the powers which the courts before whom prosecutions come will have to determine what are the penalties. People often think that if the penalty provided is $ 10,000, that is it. Of course it is not. It is a maximum penalty. The penalty imposed may be much lower than that. In some circumstances it may even be a bond. It will be a matter where the courts can take into account specific circumstances, the accidental or unwitting nature of the activity of a person who does these things. Of course, in the case of those who do conspire, do recruit and do try to sally forth to upset and destroy governments and in the case of those who kill, no doubt the courts of this country will act strongly under this legislation. Those courts have that discretion and they can take into account the situation. I believe, therefore, that the Bill can be expected to operate fairly. I hope it will be a Bill which will not have to be used very much. I hope it will be a Bill which will be an intimidation to people against carrying on the activities which are proscribed in this Bill. In all these circumstances I believe it is a necessary and desirable piece of legislation for this Parliament to pass and I have warm support for it.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Since my colleague Senator Button has passed to my colleague Senator Wheeldon and me the task of bearing the heat and burden of the day, I should like to point out that the attitude of the Opposition is not one so much of opposition to a measure which is praiseworthy in intent as one of doubt as to whether this praiseworthy object has been achieved by the Bill. Perhaps in the course of this debate the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) will be able to dissipate these doubts. It must have been a difficult Bill to draft and we acknowledge those difficulties. We acknowledge from the outset that the intent of the Bill is praiseworthy. It seeks to prohibit Australians who are denned in clause 6- in a way which I think is a good dragnet, that is, they are either Australian citizens or, not being Australian citizens, they are ordinarily resident in Australia or at any time during the period of a year immediately preceding the doing of the act which it is sought to prohibit they were present in Australia for a purpose connected with the act. The Bill seeks to prohibit them from actually engaging in acts of terrorism which are specified in clause 6(3) or preparing in or outside Australia to engage in certain preparatory activities which are defined in clause 7 for the purposes of committing the acts of terrorism defined in clause 6.

We in the Opposition certainly do not want to be heard to put any obstacles in the way of a measure which seeks to minimise acts of terrorism or to diminish the role of which certain misguided or misguidedly idealistic Australians might have to partake in this awesome scourge of terrorism which has become such an horrendous feature of life throughout the world in recent years. I was somewhat diverted by the admission in the second reading speech of the Minister that twice in recent years there have been such attempts. I do not know exactly to what incidents he was referring but my mind goes back to certain rather heated debates which occurred in this chamber a few years ago in which the leading protagonists were ex-Senator Murphy and the late Senator Greenwood and, I suppose with myself playing a minor role, in which I recall constant denials of allegations made by Labor senators that insurgent bands were being trained in Australia. I remember in fact that a committee was set up on the motion of certain Democratic Labor Party senators to inquire into such activities. I was a member of that committee. I recall taking evidence, including the presentation of some persuasive photographs of Ustashi volunteers training in camps. Senator Button mentioned Healesville in Victoria but there was an even more important camp near Wodonga. Evidence was also given- it was common knowledge to everyone but the Liberal senators- of actual training of Ustashi members in the suburb of Woollahra and other places around Sydney and of their actually getting into Yugoslavia and receiving a punishment much more drastic than is contemplated in this Bill. Those allegations were constantly denied by our opponents. I should like to hear some information from the Minister, just as a matter of curiosity, about the 2 examples to which he referred. He might let us know whether the angry protestations about our allegations a few years ago turned out to have been without much substance.

I would like to congratulate the Governmentapart from any doubts that we have about certain details in this Bill- for having grasped the nettle of Australia’s involvement in a world where terrorism has become endemic. The Government is now committed to firm opposition to the sort of activities which it once denied existed in Australia and to that extent, if it is deathbed repentance, it nonetheless is a repentance. If the Government, in its enunciation of the reasons for the measure, acknowledges the undesirability of prohibiting enlistment in foreign armed forces while the enlisters are abroad, even as mercenaries, it is surely clear that it is not within the competence of any government effectively to prevent such enlistment and there is no point in putting into any measure a provision which there is little possibility of enforcing. But there is a fine line, as I will point out, between this sort of activity and the sort of activity that is sought to be prohibited and prevented by this Bill as I will show when I come to an analysis of clause 9.

I agree entirely with the general provisions against recruitment. I point out that in the present state of the world, especially in the state of a depressed economy like Australia ‘s, there is a great temptation to bewildered, despairing young men who have been extruded from any real activity in their own society, to grasp desperately at almost any straw to make themselves feel relevant and wanted in the world. It is possible to imagine combinations of idealism and despair which would make young men easy prey to high pressure recruitment activities in a period like the present one. I applaud the general measures against recruitment.

Clause 9(2) gives me some difficulty. The Attorney-General is given power under clause 9 (2) to grant an exemption to the general prohibitions in clause 9(1) against recruiting in Australia. Mr Ellicott, the Attorney-General, in the other place gave what I considered a rather naive explanation of the purport of this subclause. Sub-clause (2) of clause 9 in general gives the Attorney-General the power to state that it is in the interests of the defence or the international relations of Australia to permit the recruitment in Australia, either generally or in particular circumstances, of persons to serve in or with a specified armed force. I emphasise that pointwith a specified armed force, not the regular armed force of a country but a specified armed force. I assume that it would be the government of the day, through its Attorney-General, which would be doing the specifying. I refer again to sub-clause (2) of clause 9 which gives the Minister the power to permit persons to serve in or with a specified armed force in a particular capacity. In circumstances such as that, the Attorney-General is entitled to waive the general ban against recruitment of mercenaries or volunteers which is contained in clause 9(1).

Let us take a few specific examples. Let us take our minds back to the Spanish Civil War. Suppose a Labor government had been in office in Australia between 1936 and 1939. It could be safely assumed, I think, that such a government would have had no difficulty in specifying that the armed forces of what we would have considered the democratic combatants in that war would have come within this exemption. It should be noted in passing that we would have alleged that they were the correct government. I do not think juridically there could have been much dispute about that. We would have cast a benign eye on the recruitment of volunteers to help repel what we would have seen as the fascist threat of the Franco insurgence. In fact, of course, it is common knowledge that a great deal of idealistic young men in Australia actually volunteered to go and fight with the Spanish Republican Army. If a conservative government had been in power in Australia at the time I have no doubt that even though it may have been a little chary of openly stating its preference for Franco, it could have brought itself to specify that the armed forces of Franco were those that came within the meaning of this provision and could have lifted the embargo on recruitment of volunteers or mercenaries to go to fight with the Franco forces. I do not see any great horror in this proposition. It is an expression of political democracy. It may be that a government of one political coloration in this country has a preference for certainforces in another country and a government of a different coloration has a preference for the opponents of those armed forces.

The kernel of the difficulty that I find about this provision in relation to the rest of the Bill is this: Construedliterally sub-clause (2) of clause 9, even though clauses 6, 7 and 8 are designed to put barriers in the way of Australians as defined joining up with partisan terrorist bands in other parts of the country, would allow a government to get out of the prohibitions contained in clauses 6, 7 and 8. After all the Palestine Liberation Organisation has armed forces. Could not a government which was sympathetic to the PLO specify those armed forces as being armed forces which came within the power of sub-clause (2) of clause 9 to grant such an exemption? Could that not apply to any rebels or insurgents who had armed forces?

Senator Baume:

– I believe your point is correct.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It may sound pettifogging or sound like an excessively literalist interpretation of the sub-clause, but these are things that have raised the doubts in the Opposition’s mind as to whether the purposes of the Government could not have been achieved a little less clumsily. As I say, sub-clause (2) of clause 9 could be interpreted as a power to allow recruitment of terrorists. The Government decides. Terrorist is a word of abuse, a pejorative term, which is in the mind of the beholder. It is within the power of a government of the day to say that it approves of certain terrorists and then to invoke sub-clause (2) of clause 9.

Senator Missen:

– Either House of Parliament could disallow it if the amendment goes through.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-This depends on the numbers in either House. It is a political reality that if a government had the numbers it could whitewash and give its blessing to the PLO or to any other insurgent group provided it had armed forces, and by definition terrorist groups have armed forces. It could then allow recruitment of the very sort of terrorists whose coming into existence the Bill seeks to prevent by way of clauses 6, 7 and 8.

Now we come to the crowning absurdity of the Bill. While the right to grant exemptions enshrined in sub-clause (2) of clause 9 merely is an exemption against recruitment, there is still presumably a prohibition on the people recruited to engage in the activities that are specified in clauses 6, 7 and 8. That strikes me as a quite absurd contradiction. The sub-clause allows a government, which is so minded and which has the numbers, to get around the earlier provisions of the Bill. At the same time that escape clause could be rendered meaningless by the fact that even people who had been recruited under the exemption would be prohibited and subject to penalty under clauses 6, 7 and 8.

As I said, I appreciate that this was a particularly difficult Bill to draft. I appreciate that the intentions of the Government were quite pure. I see nothing sinister in the general intendment of the Bill, but I appeal to the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) when he replies to allay the doubts which I at least feel as to what are the possibilities under what seem to me to be the contradictory clauses of this Bill.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I believe I am the only person without legal training who will be speaking to this Bill. There appears to be a bipartisan acceptance of what the Bill seeks to achieve. I take Senator James McClelland ‘s point that clauses 9 and 10 of the

Bill are the main causes of concern to me, not that I do anything but support the Bill. I believe, as Senator James McClelland does, that this is a proper attempt to resolve an issue which requires action by the Government, though in clauses 9 and 10 there are some potential future problems. I wish to emphasise only several points during my brief address. The first is that I believe that mercenaries are entitled to pursue their calling. Though I would never see it as an attractive calling there are people who throughout history have followed this course. Senator Missen pointed out that many authorities overseas have made it clear that it is almost impossible to stop people following the calling of a mercenary if they so wish. Lord Diplock ‘s Committee implied that it was an undue restriction upon their rights to try so to do.

The second point I make relates to one of the associated matters coming out of this Bill, namely the attempt to prohibit military drilling in Australia. The Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) announced that a proclamation made under the Crimes Act is something greatly to be desired. The third point is that the Attorney-General’s role is likely to be politicised in view of the discretionary power which will be vested in him under clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill. Like other honourable senators I was attracted to the committee set up in the United Kingdom following the Angolan exercise when, I think, 160 citizens of the United Kingdom enrolled as mercenaries following advertisements in Great Britain and took up the cause, I believe, of the FNLA- the National Front for the Liberation of Angola against the MPLA- the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola in the Angolan conflict.

I do not want to see Australia used as a recruiting base for any kind of terrorist activity. I do not want to see the Irish Republican Army training and recruiting people from Australia. Like other honourable senators I do not want to see Australia used as a base for continuing domestic conflicts in the Balkans or in Greece. These matters should not concern us. We should not lend ourselves to the continuation of these conflicts. I do not want Australia involved in the civil wars that are arising on the continent of Africa. I thought that the Diplock Committee’s report was helpful. I note that the Attorney-General has drawn heavily upon it in some of the statements he has made. For example, I believe that it was his view that the Australian Government should not approve of Australians readily serving as mercenaries. The Government accepted the view in line with the Diplock report that it could not restrict a citizen’s capacity to enlist overseas if that is what he wished to do in pursuance, as Senator James McClelland, of some deeply held belief. The Bill, as I understand it, does not make it unlawful for Australians to work as mercenaries.

Senator Missen quoted from the Diplock report itself. He did not quote paragraph 10 of that report which dealt particularly with individual freedom and the public interest. I shall quote briefly from the Diplock report. It contains a passage which I found quite relevant to the point I am making. It reads:

To serve as a mercenary is not an offence under international law. Under the Geneva Conventions to which the great majority of states are parties, a mercenary serving as a member of an organised armed force of one party to a conflict which would be recognised in international law as involving a ‘state of war’ between the parties to it, is entitled to the some treatment as a combatant and as a prisoner of war as any other member of that force.

In its conclusions the Diplock report draws attention again to some of the points it wishes to make. Conclusion 3 states:

To prevent a United Kingdom citizen from accepting service as a mercenary abroad is a restriction upon his personal freedom which could only be justified on grounds of public interest.

Conclusion 6 states:

Under any new legislation enlistment as a mercenary by a United Kingdom citizen should cease to be a criminal offence and service as a mercenary abroad should not be made one.

The proposed legislation picks up the thrust of these recommendations. The other conclusion of the Diplock report to which I wish to refer is conclusion 7. It states:

Any new legislation should be directed to empowering Her Majesty’s Government to prohibit recruitment in the United Kingdom of mercenaries for service in specified armed forces abroad.

It goes on to define how that should be done. The Diplock Committee took an approach different to that being taken in this country. I understand that it sought to identify those specific forms of enlistment which were to be made unlawful. We are taking the opposite course in identifying only those forms of enlistment which should be allowed. I hope the point can be made clearly that while we do not object to service -

Senator O’Byrne:

– That can be done only by a certificate of the Attorney-General.

Senator BAUME:

– I agree with that point, Senator. While we do not in any way disagree with the rights of Australians to serve as mercenaries we are placing restrictions upon the method of their recruitment and the method of their enlistment in that calling.

The second point to which I refer concerns a matter mentioned by the Attorney-General. It is the closely related matter of military drilling by certain paramilitary organisations often associated with ethnic groups in Australia. I am interested that the New South Wales police have apparently reported that military style drilling and training in the use of firearms have occurred in various areas of New South Wales. The Press throughout Australia has similarly reported that this style of drilling and arms training has been occurring certainly often enough for the Press to know about it and to know details of it. I presume that some of those to whom Senator James McClelland referred who have travelled overseas and embarked upon actions against governments of other countries received some of their training in this country in such military drilling groups. Finally, I am interested to know that the Commonwealth police appear to have uncovered some evidence of military style training.

I am inclined to ask why people carry out this kind of activity. Perhaps they do it for the benefit of Australia. I suspect that that argument is unsustainable. Perhaps they do it for overseas ventures. Quite clearly, if that is the case, such activity is undesirable. What concerns me in association with this kind of activity in Australia is that I believe it is not consistent with the preservation in the long run of representative democracy in the style that we support. The primary responsibility we have is to do what we can to examine any activities in our country which threaten in any way the continuance of our style of representative democratic tradition. I do not believe that the presence of groups in Australia training in the use of firearms for military purposes is appropriate. To the extent that the Government intends to make a proclamation under the Crimes Act, I heartily endorse and support that action. It can be only for the good of our society. Irregular drilling and training is a potential threat to the kind of society structure we have. I want no armed vigilantes, no groups in this country outside our regular armed forces, the groups who carry our authority, engaging in this kind of activity. For that reason, I welcome the decision to make a proclamation under section 27 of the Crimes Act.

The other point I wish to develop refers to clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill to which Senator James McClelland has already referred. Clause 9 (2) provides for the Minister by instrument in the Gazette to authorise recruitment for a specified armed force under certain circumstances which he can set down. Clause 10(3) provides that no prosecutions are to proceed without the consent in writing of the AttorneyGeneral. I emphasise that this will represent a new degree of politicisation of the function and role of the Attorney-General. By tradition, the office of the Attorney-General is supposed to be somewhat outside the normal run of politics and political decision making. I believe that in the United States there is a current proposal by President Carter to remove the office of Attorney-General from the American Cabinet to try to sustain that kind of view. Whether that is true, the fact remains that the kinds of discretions provided for here will involve some political decisions as has already been pointed out by other honourable senators.

If the Bill is passed the Attorney will, in due course, be called on to make decisions which, as Senator James McClelland has pointed out, will involve choices. This well may involve choice which, in the end, may involve the Government making and declaring its own value judgments for one side in certain matters and against the other side. I am simply emphasising, as other honourable senators have, that this will occur under the Bill as it is laid down. We may have to decide whether we wish to allow involvement by Australians in the Israeli Army. Having done that, do we then consequently wish to allow involvement in certain Arab or Palestine Liberation Organisation army groups? If we do not allow both we must accept that we will have made a political choice which places us on one side of the argument. We have to decide whether we will allow Australians to enlist in the British military forces. After all they may have to serve in Ulster. We might decide that that is not an appropriate thing to do. There might be pressure on the Attorney to allow enlistment in certain armies in southern Africa. There may be pressure to allow enlistment in armies which might be fighting communist guerillas, perhaps in South East Asia.

We may decide to allow enlistment on one side and not the other in particular arguments. There may be pressures to allow enlistment in the armed services of New Quinea, particularly if this region becomes unstable in the future. There could be a situation, and Senator James McClelland already has referred to it, to allow enlistment in one or other side in some argument in our region or very close to home- for example to allow enlistment in the armed forces of Fretilin. In respect of these decisions the Government, through the Attorney-General, will be asked to make a public declaration of where it stands on the issue.

Senator Missen:

– What if you are not in government?

Senator BAUME:

– I am not concerned about these particular issues; I am merely concerned about the kind of choices to be placed before an Attorney-General in the future. The same thing applies to clause 10 where the Attorney-General will have to decide whether he wishes to proceed with prosecutions that may arise under the provisions of this legislation. If he decides not to proceed it will be seen as a government decision for or against one particular policy decision. I simply comment that this represents some new degree of political involvement on the part of the AttorneyGeneral.

So I see the Bill as fulfilling the kind of useful purpose and desirable objectives to which other honourable senators have referred already. I see it and the proclamation associated with it as protecting Australian society against certain undesirable developments which we have seen in past years. I see the Bill as bringing our practice in Australia into line with that of other nations. I see the exemptions which the Bill provides as a twoedged sword- desirable in that they will allow certain Australians to continue to follow deeply held loyalties and beliefs but dangerous perhaps in the degree of politicisation of the role of the Attorney-General. Also I am pleased that the Bill accepts, and that the speech by the AttorneyGeneral explicitly accepts, the proper role of the mercenary in the world. I have known a number of Australian colleagues who served, for example, in the Persian Gulf. I am aware, for example, of Orde Wingate’s role as a mercenary, as a trainer, of Glubb Pasha, I have known of many people who have helped bring stability to certain regions as military advisers. There is nothing wrong with the role of the mercenary, perhaps, provided mercenaries are not enlisted in this country. In conclusion I am reminded of the lines of Houseman in writing his Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries. He made the point that mercenaries have played an important role in preserving certain civilisations. He said:

Their shoulders held the sky suspended: They stood, and earth ‘s foundations stay; What God abandoned, these defended, And saved the sum of things for pay.

In promoting this legislation, as long as we do not attempt to prevent Australians who wish to do so from serving in this kind of occupation I find the provisions of the Bill acceptable and desirable and join other honourable senators in commending it.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– My views on this Bill are the same as those admirably expressed by Senator James McClelland in his analysis of it. 1 believe that the intentions of the Bill are commendable. Some of the clauses of the Bill, particularly clause 7 relating to the training of armed men within Australia and the drilling of armed men within Australia, are essential and I do not think anybody on either side of the Senate could oppose these propositions in any way. But there is a difficulty to which Senator James McClelland drew attention and which I would like to hear the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) deal with in his reply to this debate. I refer to the problem which arises if, in pursuance of the powers which would be vested in the Minister under clause 9 (2) of the Bill, the appropriate instrument were published in the Gazette permitting the recruitment in Australia of persons to serve overseas in a manner which is otherwise precluded by the provisions of the Bill. How are we to overcome the problem of clause 6 which nonetheless continues to make it an offence for the person to serve?

Senator Missen:

– It is an altogether different thing.

Senator WHEELDON:

-No, it is not an altogether different thing. Clause 6 places a prohibition on people engaging in certain forms of activity within foreign countries.

Senator Missen:

– Terrorist activity.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Not only terrorist activity. If Senator Missen reads the entire clause he will see that it involves a very extended use of the word ‘terrorism’. It could also mean serving as a private in an army engaging in activities which would only be described as being terrorist on a most extended use of the word ‘terrorist’. Provision is made for this to be an offence and elsewhere provision is made for anybody who recruits such persons to commit an offence. But clause 9 (2) does enable the Minister to proclaim in the Gazette that certain armed forces are exempt from these prohibitions and to allow recruitment to take place.

Senator Missen:

– Oh no!

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am afraid it does. That is exactly what it does say. It allows the recruitment to take place but says nothing about waiving the prohibition on taking part in these activities overseas.

Senator Missen:

– It is talking about recruitment in the armed forces of another country.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes, that is right. Clause 9(2) talks about recruitment but elsewhere there is a prohibition on the service itself subsequent to the recruitment. So the position as it stands now is that if a proclamation is issued the person who does the recruiting will not be committing an unlawful action but the person he recruits will be committing an unlawful action within the terms of clause 6 of the Bill.

Another difficulty which I think requires explanation is in the definitions referred to in clause 6(3). Clause 6(1) says amongst other things that a person shall not ‘engage, in a foreign country, in a hostile activity against the government of that country’. But then, in the definition of such hostile activity in clause 6(3), it defines them, amongst other things, as ‘causing by force or violence the public in the foreign country to be in fear of suffering, death or personal injury’. I have no doubt of the intention; it is in order to prevent terrorists from setting off bombs at airports and doing the things that terrorists normally engage in. In fact it would seem that any reasonable construction of clause 6(3)(b) would cover any person who was serving in the armed forces of the government of another country. Surely somebody who is engaging in military activity, whether for the lawful government or some other force, by the very nature of his occupation must be causing or tending to cause, by force or violence, the public in the foreign country to be in fear of suffering, death or personal injury. I would like some clarification of that matter.

It seems from the way the Bill stands now that whatever the clause purports- it is intended to deal specifically with persons serving in the forces of the government of a foreign countrythat definition could lead one to the conclusion that somebody serving with those forces was in breach of this Act, if it becomes an Act, from the very nature of the occupation in which he is engaged.

I agree that these are matters of drafting and they do not go to the heart of the intention of the Bill. I think all honourable senators would agree that we are now in the position where some sort of action has to be taken in order to prevent a recurrence of the events which the Minister acknowledged in his second reading speech. I think it is universally agreed now that there were two armed assaults against Yugoslavia carried out by persons normally resident in this country. It is an intolerable state of affairs that people should be subjected to terrorism in Yugoslavia, or anywhere else, as a result of action taken within Australia. All sorts of governments have had to take an interest in this matter. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany several years ago found it necessary to expel from that country the office of the General Union of Palestinian Students- although it was something which largely occurred within its own bordersbecause they were implicated in a number of terrorist activities, one of the most notable being the murder of a number of Israeli atheletes and members of their group at Munich during the Olympic Games of 1 972.

The situation which has to be dealt with now is new. It is not a situation which confronted governments 200, 100 or even 50 years ago. Through the rapid mobility of people by jet aircraft, through new developments in high explosives, through concealable weapons and these sorts of things the possibility of terrorism which can cause the deaths of hundreds of people is a problem with which the statesmen of a generation or more ago did not have to grapple.

I would not agree with Senator Baume ‘s use of the word mercenary, as I think probably a happier expression could be used to describe some of the people who have served as volunteers in the armed forces of other countries, either with the government forces or with the opposition forces. Certainly, there is no doubt that many of those people have made a great contribution to human civilization. I have nothing but respect for those volunteers who served with the Spanish International Brigade, the people who came from throughout the world to fight against the nazis and fascists in Spain. These people came from many countries. They were openly recruited in democratic western European countries, Great Britain and the United States of America. Also, a much lesser number were recruited to serve with the various fascist legions which supported Franco.

There is no doubt that all of us are in the debt of those volunteers from those countries which were neutral and who served with the armed forces of the allies in the early stages of the Second World War. There is a memorial in St Paul ‘s Cathedral or in Westminster Abbey- I forget which- to Pilot Officer Fisk, an American who volunteered and served with the Eagle Squadron of the Royal Air Force before America came into the Second World War. He was killed in the Battle of Britain and is the first American citizen known to have been killed in the Second World War. Certainly, I do not think anybody here would want to condemn the members of the Eagle Squadron, the American volunteers, who enlisted in the fight for democracy against fascism in the Second World War. In fact, whatever this legislation may try to do and whatever some of us may want to do, people who arc as dedicated as that will not be stopped.

A substantial number of people who served in the International Brigade in Spain were from Germany and Italy. They went there despite the wishes of Hitler and Mussolini. They would have been executed if their own governments could have laid their hands on them. People who are dedicated to this extent are not mercenaries. They are fighting because of feelings of very high idealism or dedication. Whatever one may think of the cause to which they commit themselves, they will not be deterred by legislation of this kind. The people who will be deterred are the mercenaries, people who are engaging in some conflict merely to make money unless, of course, they are so psychopathic that they are not subject to any sort of influence whatsoever.

I come to a particular matter on which I would like some clarification from the Minister. It concerns a country in which, at the present time, it appears that a large number of people, whether mercenaries or idealists, are serving, and that is Rhodesia. We have a difficulty because I do not think anyone knows what the government is in Rhodesia. Not one country, including the Republic of South Africa and even Portugal under Salazar, has recognised the Smith regime in Salisbury as being the government of Rhodesia. There is not one country with which Rhodesia has diplomatic relations. It was a result of a United Nations decision, to which at least lip service is paid by all countries, that Rhodesian passports are not recognised. The Rhodesian government is not recognised as it comprises a group of people illegally holding power. I would be obliged if the Minister, when he replies, would deal with this matter and tell us about the position in Rhodesia. Is there a government in Rhodesia? What happens if somebody goes there? As the basis of the prohibition in this Bill relates to governments, what U the government in Rhodesia? Can this matter be dealt with? Does this Bill in any way cover the situation in Rhodesia and the possible recruitment of people to take part in fighting in Rhodesia? If this is not the case, is it envisaged that some sort of special legislation could be introduced to cover the situation in that country? This is not a country in which there is a hypothetical problem of people undertaking some sort of military service. It is, in fact, happening. To the best of my understanding of the Bill, the current juridical situation of the so-called government in Rhodesia is not dealt with by the proposals which we have here at the present time.

With Senator James McClelland I agree that it is quite proper that there are circumstances in a democratic society in which the Minister may say that it is in the best interests of this country that people should be allowed to participate in an overseas conflict. This is taking into account the difficulty which both of us have raised about the lack of distinction between recruitment and actual service. There may well be occasions on which the Australian Government would feel that it is proper for Australians to volunteer to serve in the forces either of the government or of some opposition group of another country. This is a matter which would have to be dealt with by the people of Australia. As I understand it, through the provisions of the proposed amendment, any such proclamation or notice would have to be tabled in both Houses of the Parliament. This would give an opportunity to members of both the Houses to debate the matter. So it would be a clear political decision about which the people of Australia would be able to make their own judgment.

In conclusion, I think it has to be said that we will not solve the problems of terrorism- this Bill is primarily directed against terrorists rather than against people enlisting in the regular armed forces of some overseas countries- until such time as we can get international agreement and united international action to supress terrorism. As long as we have countries like Libya which harbour and encourage terrorists any efforts we make here will be very small. Any country which is subject to terrorism from some other source will have no alternative but to strike back by the best means available to it. Over the last couple of years there have been unfortunate events in Norway where it is alleged that members of the Israeli secret service killed members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Mr President, I suggest to you that as long as we have certain governments sponsoring and harbouring members of the PLO and providing arms and weapons to the PLO, we will find that any government against which the PLO directs its fire- in this case Israel- will not have any alternative, because we do not live in a perfect world, but to strike back and hit them and put them out of business. I think any government would have a responsibility to do that. If this country were under threat by terrorists from some overseas source, I believe it would be irresponsible for the Australian government in those circumstances not to adopt exactly the same methods. So, in order to achieve what I believe the Government is trying to achieve in this Bill and those aspects of the Bill which I believe the Opposition supports, it will not be sufficient for us to carry legislation here, however adequate it may be for the limited amount of recruitment and participation by Australian nationals or Australian residents in overseas conflicts. What we need is an enforceable international agreement on terrorism and to see that we play our full pan in enforcing any such agreement.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I support the Bill. It breaks new ground and I congratulate the Government on its initiative in bringing in this legislation. There is a need for the legislation and it has been recognised by the Opposition that its introduction is timely although both Senator James McClelland and Senator Wheeldon have expressed some doubts about whether the legislation will do what it is designed to do. The 2 main objectives of the Bill have been stated already but I refer to them very briefly. The first objective is to prohibit persons preparing for or engaging in incursions into foreign countries. The second objective is to prohibit the recruiting in Australia of persons to serve in armed forces in a foreign country. The point has been made already, but I think it is important to note it, that this legislation does not prevent an individual from enlisting outside Australia for overseas military activity in a country of his choice. It has been said that the Bill will not make it unlawful for an Australian citizen to fly to Israel, Rhodesia or wherever he wishes to enlist in military service, although it would make it unlawful for anyone in Australia to recruit a person for that service. That is a short summary of what the legislation is designed to achieve.

Reference has been made to the Diplock Committee ‘s comments in that regard and it is interesting to note that the Commonwealth Government in its own examination of the situation came to the conclusion that the activities of individuals which I have just instanced ought to be exempt from the provisions of the legislation. That was a conclusion arrived at quite independently of the findings of the Diplock Committee. The word ‘mercenary’ has been used often and I would like to refer briefly to a comment in the Diplock report regarding the difficulty of defining the word ‘mercenary’. Fortunately this definition has been left out of the legislation. It has been said that there is a differentiation between a soldier of conscience and a professional freelance soldier. The Diplock Committee found it impractical to distinguish between them. I briefly quote 2 passages from the report which deal with this matter. The first passage states:

The motives which influence a man to enlist in an armed force which is not that of his own country may run through the whole gamut from sheer desire to private gain accompanied by indifference as to the cause which that force is supporting to a conscientious conviction that the merits of that cause are so great as to justify his sacrificing his own life if need be in order to ensure that it will triumph . . .

We know of instances where people are so dedicated to a cause that they regard it as their duty and in keeping with their conscience to fight for that cause. In a nation such as Australia it is right and proper that we should concede to an individual his fundamental right to do this without legislative restriction. I refer briefly to another passage of the Committee’s report. It reads:

A spirit of adventure, an ex-soldier’s difficulty in adjusting to civilian life, unemployment, domestic troubles, ideals, fanaticism, greed, all may play some part in the same individual’s motivation. No single one of them may be identifiable to the standard of proof called for in a court of law as the effective cause of his becoming a mercenary.

So one can appreciate the problems in attempting to distinguish between the various types of mercenary. The Bill has been dealt with quite thoroughly by honourable senators who have spoken before me and I do not want to labour the points that have been made by Government senators. However, I briefly want to refer to the definition of ‘engaging in a hostile activity’ which is referred to in sub-clause (3 ) of clause 6. This clause has its limitations and I think that this is rightly so. It does not deal with the sort of trifling activity which does not cause any inconvenience to anyone but really with a major and violent activity as set out in paragaphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-clause (3). These activities are set out in the paragraphs as follows:

  1. the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the foreign country;
  2. causing by force or violence the public in the foreign country to be in fear of suffering death or personal injury:
  3. causing the death of, or bodily injury to, a person who-

  4. is the head of state of the foreign country; or

    1. holds, or performs any of the duties of, a public office of the foreign country; or
  5. unlawfully destroying or damaging any real or personal property belonging to the government of the foreign country.

There are major limitations on the operation of the legislation which provide some sort of safeguard. Clause 7 is couched in reasonably wide terms and covers the preparations for incursions into foreign countries for the purpose of engaging in hostile activities. It is simple enough in its terms. Clause 9 has been the subject of some discussion in the debate and it prohibits the recruitment of persons to serve in or with an armed force in a foreign country. Before proceeding to deal with the objections which have been raised to clause 9 by the 2 Opposition senators who have spoken I make a few general observations on the effect of the legislation. As I have stated, the legislation does break new ground but I think it is a matter for regret that there is no reciprocal legislation in force in other countries. Such reciprocal legislation would have prevented some of the tragedies that have occurred in places like Angola and Mozambique. For this legislation to be fully effective we will have to see a great number of other countries adopting similar legislation.

Senator Wheeldon made some reference to international terrorism which is, of course, something we all deplore. It certainly is one of the things that is exercising the minds of all of us irrespective of the side of the chamber on which we sit. After all, tragedies such as the events at the Munich Games, which have been referred to, and the regular occurrences of hijacking of aeroplanes by completely irresponsible people illustrate activities which are very difficult to control. International law is notable for the fact that its sanctions are difficult to apply. It is difficult to get nations to agree in a practical sense to measures which would effectively prevent this sort of terrorist activity. The Bill cannot deal with terrorist activity outside Australia so that activities such as the hijacking of aeroplanes which is becoming a feature of modern life are matters for international agreement and not for this Bill.

One further provision which I will briefly refer to and which has not been adverted to so far in the debate is paragraph (c) of sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 9. It prohibits publishing advertisements containing any information relating to various matters. The Diplock report went further than that. It proposed a recommendation that: . . a prohibition upon the publication of information as to how and where to apply for employment as a mercenary should extend not only to advertisements but also to publications of such information as a news item.

The conclusion arrived at by the Government was that the recommendation, so far as it referred to publication of a news item, represented an infringement of the freedom of the Press and would seem to be an unnecessary precaution. Incidentally, this recommendation was criticised strongly by many United Kingdom newspapers. Perhaps that was an additional reason why it was not adopted by the Government.

I deal next with the provisions of clause 9 (2) about which Senator James McClelland, as I understood him, had 2 difficulties. I think his first difficulty -

Senator Bishop:

- Senator Baume had some difficulties too, did he not?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-He may have. I will deal with the ones raised by the Opposition. Senator James McClelland ‘s first difficulty concerned the necessity for this provision to be in the legislation. He said that there should not be a power vested in the Attorney-General by instrument to declare that it is in the interests of the defence or international relations of Australia to permit recruitment in Australia. In effect, that is what the clause states.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did not say that.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I had understood the honourable senator to say it because my observation -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I just say it does not achieve its object.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I take the honourable senator’s point on board. The observation I was going to make in relation to that is that, before the introduction and passage of this legislation, exactly the same position would apply.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is no argument on that.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-I will proceed to the honourable senator’s second point which I think -

Senator Button:

– His first point. He did not make the other one; so it is his first point.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Thank you, Senator Button. I will take that on board also. Senator Baume has already said that he is the only nonlawyer to enter the debate. I do not want to be caught in the crossfire of an argument as to the exact interpretation of the statute. I suppose that this is not the place to argue statutory interpretation in depth. The honourable senator has expressed a view as to the operation of clause 9(2) which, as I understand it, is that even though the Minister may exercise his power under the sub-clause to permit recruitment in Australia, either generally or in particular circumstances, of persons to serve in or with a specified armed force, or to serve in or with a specified armed force in a particular capacity, sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 9 does not apply in those circumstances. The sub-clause then goes on to quote a sub-paragraph of clause 9(1). What Senator James McClelland has said in relation to that is that, notwithstanding that the Minister takes action in that respect, a person who is recruited is still liable to prosecution under clause 6 of the Bill. As the honourable senator says, it is all right for that person to be recruited in Australia but when he enters a foreign country with intent to engage in a hostile activity against the government of that country, he thereby commits an offence -

Senator Wheeldon:

– It is not quite that way.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The only person exempted is the recruiter, not the recruit.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I concede that clause 9 is wider in its terms than clause 6 because clause 6 is limited to action against the government of a country. I pause there for a moment to turn to the definition of a government of a foreign country. The definition is worded very widely. It states:

Foreign country ‘ means any country outside Australia;

So perhaps it can be seen by honourable senators that that definition is framed in very wide terms with -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What about clauses 9(1) (a)? It specifies what an armed force may be. It states, ‘the armed forces of the Government of that foreign country or otherwise ‘.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I agree. I have already said that clause 9 is worded very widely in that clause 6 prohibits activity against the government of a country but clause 9 deals with the armed force of the government of that country or otherwise. I agree that that is what the clause says. I would make 2 points in regard to that provision: Firstly, I suppose it would be extremely unlikely that any Attorney-General would give his fiat or blessing or would sign the instrument under clause 9 (2) to the recruitment of forces other than those to serve for a government recognised by Australia. In other words -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The legislation empowers him to.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I agree that it empowers him to do this. I do not concede that point entirely. However, I am not quarrelling with the honourable senator’s view of the clause at the moment. But I point out that the practical result is that an Attorney-General would be extremely unlikely, irrespective of his political persuasion, to sign an instrument which would have the effect of permitting a government not recognised by Australia to recruit people in Australia. Senator James McClelland says that the clause gives him that power. If it does, I say that a responsible Attorney-General would not exercise it.

Senator Wheeldon:

– What if there is an irresponsible Attorney-General?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– We do not have them on this side of the chamber.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Yes, but you will not be there for long.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I will continue my remarks. I have made the point which I intended to make. I make this point on the second matter to which I wish to refer: If an Attorney-General is to exercise his power under clause 9 (2)- I am presuming that the proposed amendment to add subclause (4) to clause 9 is carried- this would mean that the instrument ultimately has the force of a regulation. So, there would be power in the Parliament to disallow. Therefore, it would be not just a decision of the government of the day. It would be a decision of the Parliament of the day. This provides an additional safeguard if one were required.

The final point I make briefly on this matter is in relation to clause 10(3) which states that the consent in writing of the Attorney-General is required for a prosecution. It would really be a Gilbertian situation if an Attorney-General with his left hand -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We have had some Gilbertian Attorneys-General.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-We may have had. As I say, it would be a Gilbertian situation if an Attorney-General with his left hand signed an instrument authorising recruitment and then with his right hand prosecuted an individual who acted under the terms of the instrument. It would be a completely inconsistent and impractical situation. For those reasons, I reject the arguments which have been posed by the Opposition in respect to clause 9 (2). I do not want to preempt the right of the Minister to say this. Possibly he has other comments to make about it.

All I say finally is that this is new legislation. We are virtually moving into what legislatively are unchartered waters. I think that the Opposition has adopted a reasonable attitude in conceding the merits of the legislation although expressing some reservations it has about how it will operate. I think that time alone will tell how efficacious it will be. I congratulate the Government on its initiative in introducing the legislation.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (3.55)- We have many lawyers in the Senate. Sometimes I get irritated with lawyers in the Senate; sometimes I am grateful for their presence. At the present moment I find myself grateful for lawyers in the Senate because they have raised in my mind a good deal of dubiousness about the actual framework of this Bill. I am anxiously awaiting debate consideration of the Bill in the Committee stage when I will be able to hear from the Minister in charge of the Bill, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack), as we get down to analysing the various clauses.

I have some problems in my mind with respect to 2 areas. I refer firstly to the area adverted to by Senator James McClelland and Senator Wheeldon, that is, terrorism. I do not see in this Bill provision for effective action to be taken against terrorism. As Senator Wheeldon said, no action can be taken against terrorism without an international agreement. 1 do not agree with that in the context of Australia. The Bill provides that the Attorney-General will make a decision one way or another. I refer honourable senators to an attempt at terrorism in Australia where administrative action was taken to export the terrorist without bringing him to trial. Honourable senators will all recollect a creature who came with a Somali passport being discovered in Melbourne about2½ years ago.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Not Billy Graham?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-No. This fellow came from Somalia with a diplomatic passport issued somewhere in the Middle East. I think it was issued by the office of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in Cairo or somewhere like that. He was found in possession of evidential material that indicated he was in Australia for reasons of terrorism. Because there was a feeling somewhere in the Government of the day that this might interfere with the travel through the Middle East of Qantas aircraft, we put him on an aircraft, treated him as a first class passenger, and delivered him back to the Middle East. If you have that sort of administrative capacity within a government, I do not see what this Bill is going to do about terrorism. I used that case to illustrate my point.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Like Big Vinnie Teresa.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-Yes. The other matter that worries me relates to clause 6 of the Bill, which reads, inter alia: . . engaging in a hostile activity against the Government of a foreign country consists of doing an act for the purpose of achieving any one or more of the following objectives . . .

The clause goes on to specify those objectives. What is the Government of a foreign country? In international relationships and within this Parliament we constantly invoke the meaning of the term ‘a government of a foreign country ‘.Is it the Government de jure of that country or the Government de facto of that country? Unless the Minister gives a further and more rational explanation as to what is meant by the ‘overthrow by force or violence of the government of the foreign country’, I cannot accept this section of the Bill.

Other elements in this Bill cause some doubts to arise in my mind. They have been canvassed already. I do not propose to avert to them at present. I conclude with 2 other general matters. How do we deal with wars of national liberation? In the worldwide context it is accepted these days by the communist parties and some fraternal socialist parties of the Communist Government in Russia, and in the so-called democratic countries in Africa, that any declaration that a particular war or activity of violence is ipso facto a war of national liberation and it becomes a war de jure. It has the support of international lawwhatever ‘international law’ means- as disclosed by the United Nations. Every time an attempt is made in the United Nations to deal with a situation of this nature, the great body of the United Nations votes against it. So international anarchy exists on a vast scale.

That brings us back to the question: What is the government of a foreign country? It is all very well for my friend, Senator Wheeldon, to hold strong opinions, as he does, about Mr Smith’s regime in Rhodesia. That is a matter of criticism and something to be abhorred. But when do I hear raised in this Parliament the situation that exists in Zanzibar, where a most violent regime exists, or in Indonesia?

Senator Wheeldon:

– All I asked was what was the position in relation to the Government of Rhodesia and such activities there.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I want to know what are the governments of some other countries too.

Senator Missen:

– If it does not apply, it does not apply.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-Who decides whether or not it applies? That is the point. This is a wide definition which gives a dragnet capacity to the government of the day. However desirable a Bill of this nature may be- I agree that it is a desirable concept- I do not think the Bill as drafted fulfils the objectives which the sponsors of the Bill sought to attain.

Like everybody else, I am going to vote for the second reading of this Bill. But I imagine that at the Committee stage there will be some contentious argument amongst honourable senators more versed in the law than I am on the matters that this legislation raises. Unless the Government is impelled to put down gags of one sort or another, probably the best destiny of this Bill would be for a standing committee of the Senate to hash it over. When I sat on the other side of the Senate it was fashionable to send Bills to Senate committees for redrafting and review. That seems to have gone out of fashion recently. However, I shall await with some interest the debate of this Bill at the Committee stage.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I had intended to make my contribution on the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Bill at the Committee stage but, having listened to the debate as it has proceeded at the second reading stage, particularly the contribution by Senator Wheeldon and now the reference by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, before the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) replies I want to raise a question relating to what I think is a marked deficiency in the Bill arising out of clause 6. Honourable senators will know that that is the clause that prohibits a person from entering a foreign country with intent to engage in a hostile activity against the government of that country or prohibits a person from engaging, in a foreign country, in a hostile activity against the government of that country. Included in the objectives in engaging in a hostile activity outlined in subclause (3) is the following, in paragraph (d): unlawfully destroying or damaging any real or personal property belonging to the government of the foreign country.

I take simple illustrations with regard to these matters. I take the raid of Entebbe, where I think the crew of Israelis who landed on the airport in Uganda intended to destroy some aeroplanes, the property of the Government. It wholly mystifies me why we penalise that offence before we make some provision for crushing terrorism or, alternatively, why we make this offence absolute without a qualification exculpating anybody from the offence if the entry into the foreign country or the engaging in activity there is for the purpose of repressing terrorism. I will yield to none in my admiration of the people who went to Entebbe to recapture the victims of horrible international terrorism which we started to suppress in the United Nations three or four years ago but in relation to which we can never make any progress.

A situation is proposed whereby guerillas and terrorists in various places might be visited by Entebbe heroes but we will not even provide an excuse for those heroes. We can take the case of the Munich murders at the Olympic Games as an example. The murderers were given refuge in Tunisia. To engage in hostile activity with Tunisia or entry into that country by an Australian or a person who has been in Australia for the previous 12 months is an offence. I put forward the proposition that there should be an appropriate provision that clause 6 shall not apply to any person who enters a foreign country or engages in the hostile activities prohibited for the purpose of the suppression of terrorism or the defence of victims of international or national terrorism.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– in replyThis has been an interesting debate about a most important and very difficult subject. One of the problems which some honourable senators have had with this legislation is that they have read into it attempts to deal with all situations which may conceivably arise in this very difficult area. I should like to emphasise that the Bill is more limited in scope than a number of honourable senators who have spoken seem to believe. 1 am pleased that the Opposition in this chamber, unlike the attitude it took in another place, has expressed its general support for the objects of the legislation. Some of the criticisms that have been made by Opposition senators would have been more appropriate to the Committee discussion of the Bill than the recond reading debate on its principles and objects. I thank honourable senators on the Government side for their support of the Bill, although some questions have been raised on this side of the chamber as well about certain aspects of it .

I want to emphasise that the Bill has two purposes, that is, to deal with and to render illegal two specific types of activity. The first activity is dealt with in clause 6 and relates to foreign incursion, that is, incursion into a foreign country by either an Australian citizen or an Australian resident, and that has some extended definition which I will not go into here. The clause deals with an incursion by Australians, to use a generic term, into a foreign country with the intention of engaging in hostile activities against the government of that country. That is the first purpose of the Bill. The other purpose is to prevent, with certain exceptions if the Attorney-General permits by instrument in writing, and I will deal with that later, the recruitment in Australia of persons to serve in any armed forces in foreign countries. Some of the confusion which seems to have arisen relates to the fact that the second object of the Bill is to prevent the recruitment in Australia of persons to serve in the armed forces of a foreign country, whether those armed forces be the armed forces of the government of the country or terrorist forces; or indeed, and this is a very likely situation, where there is no identifiable government in a country but some completely confused situation, as instanced by the Angolan type of war.

The second object of the Bill is to prevent recruiting in Australia for service in any type of activity of that sort in a foreign country. It is not the object of the Bill to prevent people from enlisting and taking part in such activities in foreign countries, and I think this has been made clear by Senator Baume, provided that they are not engaging in activities against the established or recognised government of a foreign country. We have to have regard to the diverse number of circumstances which arise in the international community these days, although I suppose they have always arisen. We are inclined to think that the international scene looks more confused now than at other times, but there have probably always been a number of different situations which could arise in other countries. As I said, the Bill is designed to deal with only very limited types of activities in relation to service by Australians in warlike activities in foreign countries.

It has been said that the Bill is not likely to do much about some of the major problems of terrorism in the modern world. While recognising the very intractable nature of terrorism and recognising the attitudes of some other countries in their failure to take action against terrorism, that does not mean that in Australia we should not do what we can in regard to those matters. Only a few weeks ago the Senate passed another Bill, the Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act, as it now is, giving effect to a convention on these matters. I am sure that everyone in the Senate will agree that that was a step in the right direction towards doing what we can in a specific area. In this Bill the Government is proposing to take two other steps in an area about which it can do something. We have tried to be as specific and as realistic as we could in taking the steps that are available to us. But the Government does not believe that in one Bill or in one action it can wave a magic wand and deal with all possible situations.

Reference has been made by a number of senators to the committee set up in England known as the Diplock Committee. I commend the report of that Committee to honourable senators because it indicates the limitations on government in taking action in this area. One of the things which must be taken into account by government is the right of its citizens to their freedom of action, as far as is consistent with its policies against terrorism throughout the world. Nevertheless, there could be many cases where

Australian citizens would wish to take part in warlike activities in other countries which would not necessarily offend against our policies on terrorism or against our policies of friendship and comity with nations with whose governments we have diplomatic relations. Therefore the Government has not sought in this Bill, as the Diplock Committee recommended, actually to outlaw any enlistment in overseas forces as such or any activity as mercenaries as such.

As I have said, we have directed prohibition against 2 quite specific activities to which we, as a government, are strongly opposed and to which, I believe, the Senate and the Parliament are strongly opposed. I think it was Senator James McClelland who asked whether the Bill would achieve what I have described as limited purposes. I will deal with some of the doubts which have been raised not only by Senator James McClelland but also by Senator Wheeldon, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and Senator Wright about the way in which the Bill seeks to achieve its purposes. As I stated earlier, I think these doubts should have been expressed at the Committee stage of the debate. However, as they have been raised in the second reading debate, I will deal with them now. First, I should like to refer to one or two other matters that have been raised almost entirely by Senator James McClelland. He referred to a statement in the second reading speech whereby I, on behalf of the Attorney-General, recognised that incursions have been launched from Australia on 2 previous occasions. Senator James McClelland asked whether there has been a change of attitude or a change of understanding by honourable senators on this side of the chamber in relation to the activities which occurred in Yugoslavia in 1963 and 1972. 1 do not have the relevant documents with me but I am advised that in relation to both those activities it was recognised that Australians had been involved in those incursions in the 2 years 1963 and 1972, although there may have been doubts expressed about the degree to which there had been organisation, training and so on in Australia. Senator James McClelland referred to a well known committee of the Senate of which he. Senator Wheeldon, Senator Webster and I were members. I well remember some of the evidence that was produced to that committee. That committee, of course, never reported and never made any finding on the evidence presented to it. I think a lot of evidence was produced to that committee which indicated that some type of training activity had been occurring in Australia. Apparently, there is evidence of it occurring since. I do not know whether it is suggested that it is the same people or same groups of people who have been training and drilling in more recent years. At all events, the Government recognises that as a problem. As Senator Baume has pointed out, the Attorney-General has indicated that a proclamation will be made under section 27 of the Crimes Act prohibiting unauthorised military training and drilling within Australia.

I turn now to some of the oilier points that have been raised by honourable senators. I deal mainly with clause 9 (2) about which much concern has been expressed. Various types of concern have been expressed about clause 9 (2), one of which is that in that clause the AttorneyGeneral is given the power by instrument in writing to permit recruitment in Australia for armed forces in another country when that recruitment is in fact prohibited by and large by clause 9(1). This was recognised by the Attorney-General himself when he was winding up his second reading speech in another place. I propose to move an amendment to clause 9 to add an additional clause to require that the Acts Interpretation Act should apply to any such instrument. Therefore, the decision would be made by the government of the day, although it would be made through the Attorney-General. That will be dealt with under the Acts Interpretation Act similar to a regulation. If my proposed amendment is carried, which I presume it will be in view of the support which has been expressed for it, it will mean that the Parliament will have the power to disallow any action that may be taken by the Attorney-General under clause 9(2).

Senator Baume has expressed concern about this power which is given to the AttorneyGeneral. He expressed concern also that the power given to the Attorney-General in clause 10 (3) would politicise his office. I do not quite follow the concern expressed by Senator Baume in that regard because the Attorney-General is, of course, a member of the Government. He is in the Parliament; he is a political creature and in most of his activities he is acting politically. It may be that he does exercise- and it is proper that he should- an independent discretion in regard to certain matters in relation to the exercise of his office. I refer mainly to prosecutions. Any decision that he makes under a power given to him in clause 9(2) would be a political decision but it would be one that I would think he would certainly make only with the concurrence of his colleagues in the Government. Under subclause (2) of clause 9 he has to make his decisions in the interests of the defence of Australia or in regard to the international relations of

Australia. It is inconceivable that a decision would be made by an Attorney-General without the concurrence of” the government of which he is a member.

Another criticism that has been made- this was strongly pressed by Senator James McClelland and Senator Wheeldon- is that the Attorney-General and presumably the Parliament, if it did not disallow it, would be agreeing to the recruiting in Australia of persons to serve in armed forces in a foreign country. Those armed forces may be, it is said, in fact carrying on operations against the government of that foreign country. Clause 9(1) prohibits the recruitment of people into the armed forces of a foreign country whether they be part of the armed forces of the government of that country or otherwise. It is the Government’s view that any action taken under clause 9 (2 ) must be read with and subject to the prohibitions of clause 6 which prevents Australian citizens- I refer to the extended definition which I have mentioned earlier- from entering a foreign country and engaging in a foreign country in hostile activity against the government of that country.

Senator Wheeldon:

– If I may interrupt, even if that is so and what you are saying is correct, it would still be the case that it would be lawful to engage in recruiting but unlawful to be recruited.

Senator DURACK:

– I am just about to come to that. The honourable senator is engaging in a bit of very technical argument and a somewhat rather logic chopping exercise. I think that Senator Tehan has already provided the main answer. It is quite inconceivable that in the light of clause 6 an Attorney-General will permit recruiting of people for a terrorist organisation to engage in activity which is prohibited by clause 6. That is the first answer. It is not the object or the intention of sub-clause (2) of clause 9 at all that anything of that sort would be permitted. The object of sub-clause (2) is to provide an exception to the completely blanket prohibition on recruiting in Australia outlined in sub-clause ( I ). It is recognised that there should be some limitation in certain circumstances. Many of the circumstances come to mind. They have been mentioned. An example is where it may be the view of the Government of the day that recruiting should be allowed for warlike activity in another country provided it is not against the government of that country.

Mention has been made of the International Brigade. I understand that the International Brigade fought in Spain on behalf of the government of the country. I do not want to speculate on these things, but it may well be a similar situation could occur. There could be a government in Australia which would want to permit people to take part in that type of activity. Senator Wheeldon has mentioned Rhodesia, which is a particularly grey area. It is the Government’s view that clause 6 would not apply to the situation in Rhodesia. Senator Wheeldon asked about that. There is no government in Rhodesia recognised by Australia and therefore there would not be any prohibition under clause 6 on any Australians taking part on one side or the other in Rhodesia. That is how I understand the position. Clause 9 prevents recruitment in Australia by forces on one side or the other or by people on behalf of forces one side or the other in Rhodesia. I would assume that the main purpose of sub-clause (2) of clause 9 would be to give the government of the day the power to permit recruiting in Australia by a friendly government which wanted to obtain, perhaps, people to assist in training its armed forces. There would be many situations like that.

I think Senator Wheeldon also mentioned what occurred in the early days of the Second World War when Americans served in England. If Australia had not been at war with Germany in those early years it is inconceivable in those circumstances that an Australian government would not have wanted to permit recruitment in Australia of people to serve in the British forces at that time the same as a number of Americans served at that time in England with the British forces. That is the very limited object of subclause (2) of clause 9.

The only other point that remains- it was mentioned by Senators Wheeldon and James McClelland- relates to a government acting as I have said quite inconceivably and allowing recruiting to take place in Australia for forces which are to be actively engaged against a government of another country with which Australia is conducting diplomatic relations. This indicates the absolute absurdity of the proposition. It has been said that the recruiter would not be committing any offence. The person recruited would not be committing an offence unless he entered the country with the intent of carrying on hostile activities against the government. It is worth looking at clause 7 which has a very extended effect, I think, on clause 6. It deals with the son of activities that are prohibited within Australia as regards incursions into foreign countries. I would think that almost anybody who is recruiting in Australia would offend one or other of the sub-clauses of clause 7. I invite the attention of honourable senators to several of the provisions of clause 7. Paragraph (e) of sub-clause ( 1 ) reads:

Give money or goods to, or perform services for, any other person or anybody or association of persons for the purpose of supporting of promoting the commission of an offence against section 6.

Paragraph (g) of the same sub-clause provides: . . knowingly permit a meeting or assembly of persons to be held … for the purpose of committing, or supporting or promoting the commission of, an offence against this section.

I doubt very much that the recruiter would get off scot free even if we imagine an Attorney-General behaving absurdly in the way that has been postulated. In the Government’s view sub-clause (2 ) of clause 9 is to be read subject to clause 6, and the powers under sub-clause (2) of clause 9 are subject to that situation. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack asked what is meant by the government of a country. As far as we are concerned it is the government that is de facto recognised by Australia as the government of the country.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– It need not be the lawful government?

Senator DURACK:

– The question of what is recognition of another country, is, I think, very well established. As I understand it, it is a government to which we give de facto recognition. That is an act of recognition. The mere fact of control is not sufficient. There has to be a recognition in international law of a government by Australia.

I think the last point I am called upon to deal with is that raised by Senator Wright. If I have missed anybody’s complaints I have no doubt they will be raised in the Committee stage. Senator Wright raised the question of an Entebbe type raid and whether the extended provisions of sub-clause (3) of clause 6 would prevent an Australian taking part in that type of activity overseas. I point out that the specific situations under sub-clause (3) are limited to persons engaging in a hostile activity against a government of a foreign country. That refers back to sub-clause (1) which prohibits persons entering a foreign country with an intent to engage in hostile activities against the government of that country. Therefore, if a person enters the foreign country without that intent even though he may commit an offence in that country as a result of his activitieshe may damage property or cause people to be in fear of death or personal injury- he has not committed an offence under clause 6 of the Bill.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Surely the people to whom Senator Wright referred were engaged in some hostile activity against the Government of Uganda. If not, what was their intent?

Senator DURACK:

– It all amounts to intent, Senator. I wonder whether the honourable senator would like to be the prosecutor trying to prove that anybody in the Entebbe raid had the intent of engaging in hostile activity against the Government of Uganda. The intent was to save the people who were being held hostage.

Senator Wheeldon:

– And that necessitated hostile activity against the Government of Uganda.

Senator DURACK:

– They were not being held by the Ugandan Government. They were being held by terrorists. It is the Government’s view that clause 6 would not actually apply in that situation.

However, I have no doubt that if I was to bring forward a Bill similar to the criminal codes of the States to make it legal to commit murder this sort of discussion would go on amongst the legally qualified members of the Senate. I am thankful that a couple of lay honourable senators, if I may say so, took part in this debate. All sorts of hypothetical questions are raised. I have no doubt that it is beneficial to have them raised. But in most cases the matters that have been raised are unlikely, hypothetical situations. As I have said, finally there is the protection of Clause 3 which I shall deal with in the Committee stage.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses I and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Definitions).

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I should like to ask the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) a question in relation to clause 3. There is no definition of government’ within clause 3. As I suggested in the second reading debate, and as was acknowledged by the Minister, this would exclude Rhodesia or Zimbabwe where there is no government recognised by this or any other country. One of the strongest complaints that has been received about the recruitment of mercenaries has been for service in Rhodesia. This is not a hypothetical case. In most of the countries one could think of there has been no conflict taking place. But in Rhodesia foreign nationals are taking part in the conflict on both sides. Can the Government give consideration, if not within this legislation in some other legislation, to proposing a law which would prevent the participation of Australians in the present conflict in Rhodesia? This is probably one of the most pressing conflicts at present. The legislation before us has as its objective the elimination of action by Australian citizens and residents in conflicts in overseas countries. Yet one of the countries where this is most evident is apparently not covered by the Bill. I put it to the Minister that further consideration needs to be given to other countries. At the moment we do not recognise the Government in Taiwan. If we recognise any government, presumably we recognise the Government in Peking as being the Government of Taiwan. Again, this is not a hypothetical matter. This is a matter where there could be conflict. One can envisage that unfortunately, in Africa and possibly in Latin America there will be a large number of countries of which over the next few years it will be very difficult to say who is the government. I appreciate that at this stage this is rather difficult to overcome by way of an amendment. Can the Minister give any indication as to whether some study of this matter is being made by the Government?

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-As the question of Rhodesia has been raised, will the Minister give a definite statement as to whether clause 6 applies. Rhodesia is a foreign country within the meaning of clause 3. As Senator Wheeldon points out, the clause has to be read in relation to a government of a country. I should like to know the Minister’s view whether, within the meaning of clause 6, the Smith Government is the Government of Rhodesia, a foreign country. This brings in the meaning of clause 3 which is under discussion.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-In view of the comments made by Senator Wheeldon and Senator Wright, will the Minister consider adopting the course of the Senate reporting progress on this Bill and seeking leave to sit at another time in relation to it. In the final stage of the second reading debate, the Minister made some comments that can be described only as derogatory about honourable senators. There is some genuine concern about the points which have been raised by Senator Wheeldon in relation to clause 3 of the Bill and by other honourable senators in relation to other clauses of the Bill. It may be that this is legislation which the Government regards as being of the utmost urgency but I should not have thought so. I should have thought it was the function of this chamber to try to arrive at the best possible legislation on a matter on which there is no violent opposition about the principles. I invite the Minister to advise the Senate whether he is prepared to take that course. I assure him that if he does it will receive the co-operation of the Opposition.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

-I shall deal firstly with Senator Button’s question. I assure my legal colleagues in the Senate that I was not making any derogatory remarks about them. I was only underlining the difficulty they create. That is sometimes for the better, I admit.

Senator Wright:

– It was not in the best form of advocacy if that was meant to persuade us.

Senator DURACK:

– My remarks were certainly not directed at Senator Wright whom I never find difficult. I am sure that consideration of this matter by other lawyers may be helpful. However, I am not persuaded at this stage of the debate that that is really necessary. When all is said and done, what the Government would regard as fairly minor points- and only very few at that- have been raised. I would rather not consider Senator Button’s suggestion at this stage. We are only up to clause 3 of the Bill. As for the questions raised in respect of clause 3 by Senator Wheeldon and Senator Wright, 1 think the Government has a very clear view and I thought I had expressed it already; namely, that we, as a government, have taken the view that this Bill should have some limited purposes only. It is not directed at activities by Australians as mercenaries as such, whether they be soldiers of conscience or mercenaries in the less generous understanding of that term. We believe it is not appropriate to expand prohibitions on activities by Australians abroad to that extent. We have adopted the views expressed by the Diplock report which already has been recognised by other honourable senators who have taken part in this debate. I think that broadly answers the question asked by Senator Wheeldon.

As far as Rhodesia is concerned, as I said, it is my understanding- I am speaking on behalf of the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) as well- that clause 6 does not apply to the situation in Rhodesia. At present the Smith regime in Rhodesia is not recognised as the government of Rhodesia and therefore there is no actual government there against which hostile activity will be prohibited by this legislation. However, whether the Bill would be adequate to cover situations which arise in the future is a matter which must be kept under consideration. I am sure we could envisage situations which may require further legislative activity, but at this stage the Government does not believe that such legislation is required.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-Let me add to what has been said on this question by Senator Wheeldon. I submit that the answer by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) makes it quite plain that there is a gaping hole in this legislation, in the combination of clause 3 and clause 6, in relation to a very current and important matter, the situation in Rhodesia. For my part I make no bones about it: I am horrified to see the white community there exposed to guerilla activities from many countries. I am regretful that if the Government is going to prohibit Australians from entering foreign countries for the purpose of engaging in hostile activity against the governments of those countries, or prohibit Australians from engaging in activities which are hostile to those governments, this situation should be capable of application to governments such as the Smith regime in Rhodesia which has been in office now since the unilateral declaration of independence 7 years or 9 years ago.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Twelve years ago.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Twelve years ago.

Senator Missen:

– It has no recognition.

Senator WRIGHT:

– My friend behind me says rather emphatically that it has no recognition. I wanted this occasion to notice how people seize on antiquities for their euphoria of particular prejudices- that is to say, a representative colony of the Crown, with the right of every other colony of the Empire to seek representative institutions, sought them and was denied on racial grounds. What was sought was the Queen’s consent. It is the veriest antiquity, Mr President. I am not going into the Rhodesian question although I have been longing for an occasion to open my mind upon the subject. Whether the Smith regime is a recognised government or not, it is a government and it is in de facto control, and for that government to be capable of being attacked with impunity, notwithstanding this legislation, shows how discriminatory this legislation is.

I just make one other general observation in order to make my point. I refer to the enormity of the penalties under this legislation. In respect of clause 6(1) the penalty is imprisonment for 14 years and under clause 9, which deals with the issue of an advertisement, the penalty is up to $10,000 or 5 years imprisonment. This shows to me that this Bill has been the product of some motivation not usually found in the legal circles in which the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) moves.

Senator Chaney:

– Democratic grounds.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Coming back to the specific point, if those honourable senators who have come into the Senate since 1960 will put themselves in a position where they are disposed to look to experience developed, they will see that the Attorney-General of that day recognised that governments in the post-war era changed somewhat indistinctly and somewhat precipitately. Therefore, when you are going to prevent activity against a government you do not want to leave the matter to a jury 2 years later to decide, on evidence from Australians, what was the government. That Attorney-General provided, in definitions for treachery, activity in relation to proclaimed governments. If we can divorce ourselves from the politics for a moment- and that should be our purpose- and consider the desirability of engaging in hostile activity against a peaceful and regulated community, here we have the situation of Rhodesia. This emphasises the desirability of having some definition of that sort for government. I suggest to the Minister that it is a very serious omission to rely simply upon the general expression ‘government of that country’ in the subsequent clauses of the Bill without definition.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (4.53)- I sought to catch your eye, Mr Chairman, but I think Senator Wright has covered the matter I had in mind. However, having received the benediction of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) to intrude my vast ignorance, as a lay member of the Senate, into a matter of drafting, I am impelled nevertheless to ask the Minister this question at this stage: Am I correct in saying that unless there is a definition of government in clause 3 the rest of the Bill has no validity? The rest of the clauses must be based on the definition of government. Unless there is a definition of government, and there is no definition, except an assertion in clause 6, 1 think at this juncture the Minister should define government for the purpose of further examination of the clauses of the Bill.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I think this Bill could well have a definition of government. In the words used by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack), it is either de Jure or de facto recognition of the control of a territory. If a government has that control it is recognised. I would have thought that that was the normal definition of government. So it is not essential that it should be in the Bill. I am sure there would be no reason why it should not be in.

I rose mainly to say in reply to what Senator Wright said about changing this Bill that it incorporates the situation of Rhodesia and presumably, therefore, it somehow is suggested that the Bill should recognise the Rhodesian Government as a government, despite the fact that it is a government in revolt against the Crown. It is also a government in that it controls the territory. It is in fact a government controlled by a small minority and has power over the great mass of the people in that country, lt is a government repudiated by the international community, the United Nations and the rest of the world. The Australian Government recognises its international obligations not to recognise, not to trade and to observe boycotts and other obligations in regard to Rhodesia. To suggest that we should somehow change this Bill to cover the situation so that the current, so-called Government of Rhodesia, will be protected and so that nobody comes from this country, I suggest is a different proposition altogether. That proposal would probably run contrary to the policies which this and previous governments have had in regard to Rhodesia.

It is true that there is a place for some legislation relating to the activities of people who try to get recruits for Rhodesia. But that is not the cause for which Senator Wright was calling for recognition. I think something better might be done in relation to people who endeavour to recruit and persuade Australians to go to the support of the present so-called government in Rhodesia. But as for changing this Bill now, I suggest that the Government is wise not to do that. If the Government wants to do something I suggest that it consider doing so in some other legislation.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– I have indicated over and over again that this Bill has limited purposes. The purpose of clause 6 is to prohibit hostile activity against the government of another country. We could debate whether the power ought to be wider than that. I understand that in another place the Opposition put forward views that the power ought to be wider than that. However, I am pleased to note that in the Senate the Opposition recognises that this Bill has a limited object. We believe that this is a manageable and workable prohibition which we include in clause 6. I think that if we tried to widen the clause in the various ways suggested by a number of people who have spoken in another place and by Senator Wright we will find that we will get into a great deal of trouble. What surprises me is that the people who are proposing that the clause ought to be wider have not put down any amendment or suggested what could be done. It would be interesting to see their amendments and to find out how clear and satisfactory they would be to the legal minds which would be brought to bear on them. But that has not been done.

As I said, the Government’s object is limited. It is not the Government’s intention to expand the effect of clause 6. I want to emphasise the point in case there has been any misunderstandingI do not think there has been any in the Senate- on the part of other people that clause 9 certainly will apply to the Rhodesian situation. Certainly, an offence is created in clause 9 by any person who seeks to recruit in Australia for people- Australian or anyone else- to serve in the armed forces on one side or the other in Rhodesia. That is firmly prohibited and intentionally prohibited by clause 9. What we have been talking about is the ambit of clause 6 in relation to Rhodesia.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak very briefly on this matter. I do not wish anyone to confuse my argument with Senator Wright’s argument. I think we have somewhat different purposes involved in the examination of this subject. The Minister has been complaining about excessive legalism and suggesting that we ought to look more to the substance of the Bill. I must say that I found his last answer a little extraordinary because I was not engaging in any legalism but asking whether there were any concrete proposals with regard to an area in which something is taking place at the present time, not something which will take place, and that is in regard to the recruitment of people to serve in Rhodesia. He has told us that clause 9 covers Rhodesia. I think there is a certain measure of doubt about this because throughout clause 9 references are made to governments. I do not want to debate that matter at the moment. The question I put to the Minister is whether there is any possibility of the Government introducing legislation- I think this is the appropriate occasion during the debate on this clause in the Committee stage to ask this questionwhich will cover the situation in Rhodesia in the same way as it covers countries where there are de jure and de facto governments recognised by Australia. It seems extraordinary that, in effect, this Bill excludes one area where we find the most serious problem of mercenary service at the present time.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– At this stage we do not have any report of Australians being involved in fighting against or for the Smith regime in Rhodesia.

Senator Wheeldon:

– For it?

Senator DURACK:

– I do not know. Certainly, the situation is rather clouded and uncertain about involvement by Australians in the fighting in Rhodesia. The matter will be kept under review. There is no plan by the Government to legislate in regard to the Rhodesian situation any further than has been done in this Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Incursions into foreign countries for purpose of engaging in hostile activities).

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I would like to raise another matter which relates to the drafting of the Bill. I am not trying to criticise the draftsmen. I appreciate the problems they have with a Bill of this kind. I refer specifically to clause 6 (3) (b) in which the definition of engaging in hostile activity against the Government of a foreign country is:

  1. causing by force or violence the public in the foreign country to be in fear of suffering death or personal injury.

As I understand clause 6, its purpose is to prohibit the taking part in these various activities against the government of a country. Clause 6 specifically refers to that. It does not refer to other activities. But the definition included in sub-clause (3) (b) and which defines this intergovernmental activity includes: causing by force or violence the public in the foreign country to be in fear of suffering death or personal injury.

Obviously that would apply to somebody who was serving in the armed forces of the government. That is what military service is about. It is to cause fear of suffering death or personal injury. In fact, it is to inflict suffering, death and personal injury. The only army, presumably, which does not try to do this is the Salvation Army. People are not alleged to have been recruited into that corps. I ask the Minister whether he will agree that the interpretation which I have put on this sub-clause is correct and that, in fact, it would prohibit anybody taking part in any activities within the terms of clause 6, whether on behalf of a government or against a government. Would it be possible for the Minister to have a further look at this sub-clause for the purpose of making it perhaps somewhat more satisfactory?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I thought I had dealt with this point earlier. Perhaps I did not or perhaps I did not do so adequately. Subclause (3) of clause 6 provides an extended explanation of what is meant by engaging in a hostile activity against the government of a foreign country. Sub-clause ( 1 ) prohibits a person entering a foreign country with intent to engage in such activity. Sub-clause (3) provides that engaging in hostile activity consists of many different things. 1 suppose the most obvious is doing acts by violence towards the government of the country. I suppose that is attacking the barracks of its soldiers, blowing up its air installations or something of that son. Paragraph (b) of sub-clause (3) provides that causing the public to be in fear of injury or death by any violent activity is also engaging in hostile activity against a government. So if one goes into a foreign country with an intent to cause some violence -

Senator Wright:

– No. An attempt to engage in an activity with an objective of causing it.

Senator DURACK:

-Perhaps Senator Wright can follow me in the debate and expand on it but I thought that I might be permitted to try to explain it. This is a rather difficult clause not because of any inadequacy in drafting but because it is complicated. That as 1 understand it is the explanation of the clause to which Senator Wheeldon referred.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I move as a qualification to sub-clause (3):

At end of sub-clause (3) of clause 6, add the following words-‘ but does not apply to an act for the purpose of rescuing or defending victims of hijackers or terrorists to whom the government concerned may give asylum ‘.

I hope to be heard in argument to show that my concern with the matter is not answered by untoward references to the carefulness of lawyers nor by the odd remark: ‘Who would like to be the prosecutor under this Act in those circumstances’. We are all drawing our money for the purpose of making the law and here we are making a law which provides for the possible punishment of 14 years imprisonment. Therefore the matter should not rest upon the ambiguous doubts of anybody in charge of the Bill but should be made crystal clear. Sub-section ( 1 ) of clause 6 prohibits the entry into a foreign country with an intent to engage in hostile activity against the government of that country and also prohibits the engagement in a foreign country in activities against the government of that country. Sub-clause (3) states that ‘engaging in a hostile activity against the government of a foreign country consists of- it does not use the word means ‘ or ‘ includes ‘ but the words ‘consists ofdoing an act for the purpose of achieving any one or more of the following objectives . . . ‘ So if it is an act which is done for the purpose of achieving the objective of causing by force or violence the public in a foreign country to be in fear of suffering death or personal injury- that is, if guards at the airport and the population at the airport are to be frightened into their barracks during activity to rescue victims of hijackers- or if the objective is unlawfully destroying or damaging any property belonging to the government of the foreign country and if the purpose of entering the country is to burn any aircraft or damage any airport property for the purpose of rescuing victims, with what certainty can it be said that the provisions of this legislation do not apply to the case of Entebbe or asylum in Tunisia of the Munich murderers? I put it to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) that it is simply a case where attention has not been given to such matters because the people who drew this Bill are more concerned with preventing recruitment abroad and with protecting the victims of guerilla warfare at present than they are in protecting the victims of terrorists or hijackers.

Senator Missen:

– That is a disgraceful thing to say.

Senator WRIGHT:

-We have failed to press home the cause against terrorism and are proceeding to apply these savage penalties to mercenaries and to people who, whether soldiers of conscience or mercenaries, engage in activities for what I would think was a perfectly lawful purpose; that is, rescuing the victims of hijackers and terrorists. Unless people join in the cause of protecting them, I listen to their expostulations with complete indifference.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I draw Senator Wright’s attention to sub-clause (3) of clause 10 which vests in the Attorney-General a discretion as to whether he will bring persons to trial on indictment for an offence against the proposed Act. Am I to understand that what Senator Wright is suggesting is that if a bunch of Australian hostages were captured by some evil regime and the Australian Government saw fit to mount a foray, such as that which the Israelis so heroically mounted at Entebbe, the Attorney-Genera) of Australia would then indict the Government of Australia and all persons who took part in that foray? This debate has reached a level of absurdity that I did not think could possibly be reached. That, I think, is the answer to Senator Wright’s amendment.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

-1 rise on this clause firstly because Senator Wright has imputed motives to the Government which I thoroughly reject and which I think are quite nonsensical. The amendment which he has moved is totally unnecessary not only for the reason put forward by Senator James McClelland but also because on a proper reading of sub-clause (3) of clause 6 it would not be possible to say that something like the Entebbe raid involved a hostile activity against the government of a foreign country. My reading of the clause, and 1 bow as a lawyer to some extent to Senator Wright with his much longer experience, would simply not encompass the Entebbe raid and that is because such a raid is not carried out with the objective of overthrowing the government, nor with the objective of causing the public in a foreign country to be in fear of suffering death, nor with the objective set out in paragraph (c) of sub-clause (3), nor with the objective of destroying property. That would be activity with the objective of rescuing people being held by hijackers. I would have thought that a proper application of that clause to the Entebbe raid would have excluded that type of activity from the provisions of the clause. For that reason I would not support the amendment put forward by Senator Wright without hearing more convincing argument than has been advanced so far.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I heard the argument that Senator Chaney put before, but 1 am sure it is not convincing because sub-clause (3) says: . . engaging in a hostile activity against the government of a foreign country consists of doing an act for the purpose of achieving any one or more of the following objectives . . .

If one of these objectives is to destroy aircraft in Uganda but the dominant objective is to rescue hijackers, that activity is still within the provisions of this clause. It does not say the dominant objective -

Senator Chaney:

– It says ‘the purposes’.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes. It says: ‘ For the purpose of doing any one or more . . .’A person could fly into a foreign country with the purpose of doing a dozen acts and of achieving a dozen objectives. Eleven of them may be ancillary and auxiliary to the main purpose.

Senator Chaney:

– Then that is not its purpose.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes, it is. It is for the purpose of achieving ‘one or more of the following objectives’. Damaging property belonging to the government of a foreign country- that is all it says- unless reliance is placed upon the word unlawfully’. I invite the Minister to explain to me in a minute the application of that word. I turn now to deal with Senator James McClelland ‘s intervention. I have interpreted on a very liberal basis that clause 5 covers the instance that the honourable senator put forward. That is to say, if a foray is mounted by the Australian Government for that purpose, I think that it would be in the course of duty to the Commonwealth in relation to the defence of Australia. While that may be the case, I have adverted already in other places to the ambiguity of that. It might be doubtful, but I have given the benefit of the doubt to the Government in that situation.

I envisage a purposeful foray on the part of civilians. A group of civilians, perhaps of the same race as the victims of Entebbe, may be motivated by patriotism to their colleagues and take action without the Australian Government authorising it. It would not have to be an air raid. The action may take the form of an armed landing or something of that sort on the coast of Tunisia. It would not have to be undertaken so far away from Australia. It may be undertaken in a neighbouring country. But the point of principle in my contention is that the Government, not having succeeded whatever its efforts may have been to outlaw hijacking and terrorism, is not protecting the victims of those crimes that occur with impunity but is punishing absolutely the people who may engage in acts for the purpose of achieving ‘one or more of the following objectives’: To damage aircraft for the dominant objective of rescuing victims of hijackers. In those circumstances, I live in dismay at the arguments that can be conjured up just because a Bill appears in print and this chamber is not disposed to enter into a purposeful dissection of it for the purpose of seeing that injustice does not occur. In these cases the relative injustice is completely horrendous.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) I point out to the Committee that I am not happy with the way in which Senator Wright has worded his amendment. We are asking ibr it to be cleaned up. I call the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I would be very happy also to have the amendment cleaned up. I do not know where these words are supposed to go in the Bill. Are they intended to part of sub-clauses (1), (2) or (3) or are they intended to form another sub-clause? Perhaps they are intended to be tacked on somewhere here or there. I do not know. This reveals the problems of draftsmanship. It might lead to a slightly greater understanding of some of the problems that the draftsman of the Bill had in dealing with all the sons of situations that arise. The Government’s view is that it is unnecessary, for reasons I have already given, to have this amendment made in the Bill. I will reiterate those reasons: If the purpose of the amendment is to deal with a situation involving the rescue of the victims of hijackers, this is not covered by the clause which would require a person to enter a country with the purpose or the intent of destroying or damaging property belonging to the government of the country. If that occurs incidental to the purpose, the provision may or may not be necessary.

This proposed amendment also reveals the problems of dealing with specific cases which may never occur again in the way they have occurred in the past. It is conceivable rescue operations may occur without any need to engage in actions against the real and personal property of a government. A situation may arise, as frequently happens, in which an aircraft belonging to an international airline is sitting in the middle of an airfield situated in a desert. In that case the operation is directed at rescuing the people from that aircraft. Even though it happens to be in another country, there may be no operations necessary against the real and personal property of a foreign country. I think that efforts to legislate for specific cases like this which may never be repeated can lead and do lead to very considerable difficulties and create problems with legislation that is already difficult enough.

Senator Wright’s amendment in its broad terms could have very much wider implications. It applies generally to any entry into another country. We are assuming here that it is not the type of situation that Senator James McClelland mentioned. I think that situation would be covered by clause 5. There are other provisions to which the honourable senator has referred which would cover this situation. Senator Wright has said that his amendment does not apply to an act for the purpose of rescuing victims of hijackers or terrorists to whom the government concerned may give asylum. A situation might well arise in which the government of a foreign country has these victims locked up in such a way that a war-like operation, if not a war, against that country, might very well have to be launched to rescue them. It would be absolutely contrary to the general purpose and policy which is enunciated in clause 1 of the Bill. I think that they are the real difficulties of Senator Wright’s amendment, apart altogether from the fact that the Government does not believe that it is necessary.

The CHAIRMAN:

– So there is no misunderstanding, let me repeat Senator Wright’s amendment to the Committee. It reads as follows:

At the end of sub-clause 3 of clause 6 add the following words: ‘ But does not apply to an act for the purpose of rescu ing or defending victims of hijackers or terrorists to whom the government concerned may give asylum ‘.

I call Senator Button.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I again ask the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack), in view of Senator Wright’s amendment and the discussion which has taken place since I last directed this question to him; is he now prepared to move that the Committee reports progress and seeks leave to sit at another time? I ask the Minister that because he indicated in answer to the earlier questions that he was not persuaded at that time- that is the expression he used- to accede to the request. It would be most unfortunate if Senator Wright’s amendment which has obviously been so painstakingly drafted was not considered adequately by the Committee. I am serious in that sense. Very short notice was given of the amendment. It was presented a few minutes ago. I think the Committee should be entitled to take that course and that the Minister should move such a motion.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I am undeterred by any sarcasm about the painstaking drafting of the amendment. I have had this clause under consideration for a fortnight. I have debated it elsewhere. I did not produce -

Senator Durack:

– You did not tell the Government what the amendment was.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I did not propose to produce an amendment. I proposed to adopt the rather more pacific approach of inviting the Minister to see the need for the amendment and giving him the opportunity to move it. But when he said in a previous intervention, ‘instead of making these suggestions, produce your amendment’, I produced one. If anybody has any criticism of the draftsmanship, let him stand and point it out. Honourable senators will see that it keys into the phraseology and the language of the clause, As far as I can see, the draftsmanship is not subject to criticism.

I come now to the difficulty of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs with the particular case of Entebbe. Suppose 2 aircraft are hijacked and one goes to South Africa and one to Rhodesia. Suppose that one goes to a friendly country and one to an enemy country. Suppose the crew and the passengers in the friendly country are minded to rescue their mates across the border. That is one case. They would enter with the intent to engage in hostile activity. That is to say, they would enter to perform an act for the purpose of achieving the objective of damaging the country’s property, the dominant purpose of cause being to rescue the hijacked. Suppose the 2 aircraft land in the same country, one is captured and the other escapes, and the crew and the passengers of the one that is free engaged in hostile activity against the airport where the victims are held bound. They would be engaging in hostile activity in that country. Do I need to go on to give any more practicable specific cases? I suggest that there obviously are cases in which people could be subject to this huge criminal penalty when performing very meritoriously.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I want to carry forward the line that Senator Buttton put to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. There is fairly general support of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Bill which is before the Senate tonight, but there are some technical issues which ought to be thought about. Whilst I do not agree with what Senator Wright has said about the situation in Rhodesia, I can see that some consideration might well be given to his proposed amendment or to some substitution for it. To my mind, it certainly is not reasonable that an amendment has been proposed but not circulated. We have not been given an opportunity, either as individuals or as a party, to think about the amendment. It is an amendment of some substance. I must confess that I think every honourable senator would be favourable to the point Senator Wright has made in relation to the Entebbe raid. Most of us welcomed what happened on that occasion. No honourable senator would like to vote against a proposition which might provide a reasonable and practicable solution to the possible recurrence of what happened in Entebbe.

In order to facilitate the passage of this legislation, the Minister has said that such a situation may not recur. It would seem to me to be the proper course would be that honourable senators should have an opportunity to consider an amendment that has been proposed. I can see 2 propositions available to us. The first, put up by Senator Wright, would be to refer the matter to a Senate committee, and the second would be for the Committee of the Whole to report progress. I put it to the Minister that what has occurred is most unsatisfactory. When honourable senators on both sides of the chamber substantially agree with legislation but want some review of certain aspects of it, there ought to be a vehicle whereby agreement can be reached. If the Minister is not prepared to agree with either proposal, I think some honourable senator should move a motion. I ask the Minister again whether he is prepared to agree to adjourning the debate on this matter and to reporting progress to allow the matters to be properly considered.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– The Government has considered the Entebbe-type situation. I have discussed the matter with the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) and I have discussed it again today with my advisers. The view of the Government is that the Entebbe-type situation is not caught by the drafting of clause 6. In drafting any Bills one has to rely on the draftsman. Honourable senators may have different views about the legal effect of a particular clause and so on and it is fair enough for them to raise them because they might relate to issues which might not have been considered. But this particular matter has been considered. It is the view of the Attorney-General and of his advisers- they are not limited to the advisers here- and the draftsman as well that this situation is not caught by clause 6 and that there is no need to introduce any additional provision such as that proposed in Senator Wright’s amendment.

As I have pointed out already, Senator Wright’s proposed amendment raises difficulties and extended problems. It could apply to a much wider situation than occurred in the Entebbe raid. We have thought about the problem. We have come forward with drafting which we think covers it. It covers it in the sense that it does not catch conduct in circumstances like those of the Entebbe raid.

I am not persuaded that simply because one honourable senator in Committee proposes an amendment to a matter to which the Government has given consideration already there is justification for postponing further consideration of the Bill. To postpone further consideration would be a fairly strong step to take and would involve putting aside debate on a Bill and delaying it until towards the end of the session, when there will be a good deal more Government legislation and time will become a problem. What has been suggested so far to the Committee does not persuade me that such a course is necessary.

Motion (by Senator Button) pur.

That progress be reported.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 25

NOES: 29

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I wish to speak to the motion to put the amendment. I know that I cannot reflect on the decision of the Committee not to report progress, but this is an amendment of some substance, despite the fact that Senator Wright thought the Opposition was being satirical in mentioning it. It is an amendment of some substance and ought to be considered by the Opposition at a Party meeting. We have not had an opportunity to do that. In fact, we have not even had an opportunity to see the amendment, it has not been circulated. It should have been circulated and given due consideration, not only by members of the Opposition but by quite a number of members of the Government who are not aware of the amendment. I doubt whether Senator Messner has a copy of the amendment before him; I do not think Senator Baume has; Senator Townley has not; Senator Thomas does not know about it. The Committee is in the situation of considering an amendment which has not been circulated but which ought to be considered. I put it to the Committee that there ought to be some debate on the amendment before we dismiss it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I join with my colleague Senator Georges in suggesting that the amendment should be circulated for the benefit of honourable senators. Obviously it is a matter of some importance. I have not seen the amendment, but I did hear Senator Wright move it while I was outside the chamber. My colleague Senator Button thought the amendment to be of such importance that he moved that the Committee report progress and seek leave to sit again. That motion was defeated. I suggest that because the matter is of some importance, before it is put to a vote the amendment moved by Senator Wright should be circulated so that at least when the vote is taken we all know its purport.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

-Could I make the procedural suggestion that we postpone clause 6 and go on with some of the other clauses. Criticisms have been made of some of those clauses, and I should like to ascertain whether any honourable senators have amendments to move to them. That could influence the view the Government might adopt on further procedural steps to be taken on the Bill.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– With respect, that suggestion falls into the same sort of position as Senator Wright’s amendment. It might be that during consideration of other clauses members of the Committee will wish to consider clause 6 and the amendment which Senator Wright has moved as they relate to clause 9, for example. I appreciate the attempt by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) to facilitate the progress of the Bill, but it might turn out to be a glib device, with respect, which does not achieve the substantial purpose about which some senators are concerned. I indicate that the Opposition would be opposed to that view. I noticed when I rose that other senators also rose to speak on the substance of the amendment Senator Wright has moved. In that situation, it would be a precipitous course to proceed immediately to other clauses, I should have thought.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I wish again to involve myself in the debate on clause 6. 1 believe that the Government ought to be giving further consideration, not so much specifically to the amendment moved by Senator Wright but to the issues opened up by him in speaking to the amendment. The specific situation to which he has drawn attention in his amendment is the Entebbe type of incident and the hijacking of aircraft. However, when one considers the proposition put forward by Senator Wright, there are very wide reaching implications in what he said. There could well be a group of private persons who would find it necessary to take defensive action of some sort against a foreign government. If one looks at clause 6 ( 1 ), it states:

A person shall not-

) enter a foreign country with intent to engage in a hostile activity . . .

engage, in a foreign country, in a hostile activity . . .

One could well envisage all sorts of circumstances, not only those which Senator Wright has put forward, in which a private Australian ship or an Australian plane could be involved in a position where it was under attack or some sort of threat from the government of a foreign country. It would be necessary for it to enter that country in order to preserve itself. The point I am making, and I think it follows from the point that Senator Wright initially was making, is that there is no provision for any form of self defensive action to be taken by Australian citizens against the actions of some foreign government. Maybe the issues involved in this are insuperable but certainly in such an important piece of legislation as this, which as we have already said we agree with in principle, I would submit to the Minister that the Government ought to pay more heed to the matters that have been raised by honourable senators both on the Government side and on the Opposition side of the chamber. Possibly the matter should be referred to the appropriate Senate committee-the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. This is not a satisfactory way of dealing with complex legislation- to try to get it through in the sort of debate that takes place in the Senate chamber on a second reading or, for that matter, in the Committee stage.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I intervene to keep the debate going while the

Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack), who is in charge of the Bill, conducts a few negotiations around the chamber so as to come to a reasonable solution. He may not wish to deal further with the substance of the clause until he has made up his mind about the course of action he wishes to take.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I also continue the debate for the purpose of allowing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) to reach some reasonable solution to this problem. As I understand the amendment, it is intended that we add to clause 6 (3) a provision that the clause shall not apply to an act to rescue victims of hijackers. I was under the impression that the Minister had suggested that consideration of the clause be postponed. I want to have on record my view that this amendment has very grave implications because we have to consider such things as the territorial integrity of a country in which the hijacked plane lands. There may be no proof that the country has given refuge to that plane. No time limit is provided. I believe this should be given deep consideration before it is put into legislative form. I hope the Minister will adjourn this debate and refer the matter for consideration by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– As a result of discussions that have taken place in the last few minutes I think we can come to an agreement to refer the clauses of the Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs provided that a report can be obtained from that Committee as soon as possible. I propose that it be presented by 26 April 1 977 because it is the Government ‘s wish to have this Bill disposed of within a fortnight after the Easter recess. I simply inform the Committee of the Government’s attitude. It will be necessary to go out of the Committee and back into the Senate to achieve that purpose. If the Opposition would indicate its attitude or if any other honourable senators have any objections, I would like to hear them now, before we go out of Committee.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I have twice invited the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) to move that the Committee report progress and seek leave to consider the Bill again. The Minister has, I think properly in view of developments, indicated that he will take that course. We appreciate the suggestion made by the Minister to refer the Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and

Legal Affairs. It has been a matter of some concern to individual senators. The Opposition will support that course and we will take any steps necessary to achieve that end.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– In view of the attitude expressed by Senator Button on behalf of the Opposition I now move:

That progress be reported.

I want to make it clear that the Government was not prepared to agree to that course without conditions and without further consideration of the details of the Bill. We are prepared to agree to that now in order to obtain a report from the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

Motion (by Senator Durack)- by leaveagreed to:

That notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the Clauses of the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Bill 1977 be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for consideration and report to the Senate on or before 26 April 1 977.

Sitting suspended from 5.52 to 8 p.m.

page 733

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! I inform the Senate that the President has received a letter from Senator Baume requesting that he be discharged from further attendance on the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, Senator Baume be discharged from further service on the Joint Committee of PublicAccounts and that Senator Lajovic be appointed to fill the vacancy.

page 733

QUESTION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAST TIMOR

Debate resumed from 24 March, on motion by Senator Gietzelt:

That-

1 ) A Select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon the following matters:

the form of Australian aid to the residents of East Timor;

the plight of refugees from East Timor;

the fate of six (6) Australian journalists in East Timor;

communications between Australia and East Timor;

the position in Timor, including the conflict between Timorese forces and Indonesian forces and the position of the Timorese civilian population, the origins of the conflict and its impact on the Timorese people: and

f) other matters related to the foregoing.

The Committee consist of seven Senators, four to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and three to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

The Committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

The quorum of the Committee be three.

The Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman, and that the member so appointed act us Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

The Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a sub-committee be two.

The Committee or any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

Members of the public and representatives of the news media may attend and report any public session of the Committee unless the Committee otherwise orders.

The Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it. A daily Ilansard shall bc published of such proceedings of the Committee as take place in public.

10) The Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the Committee, with the approval of the President.

The foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

Upon which Senator Missen had moved by way of amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert ‘there be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence the following matter.

The situation in the former Portuguese colony of East Timor, as it relates directly to Australia’s interests and responsibilities, and in particular-

Australian assistance to the East Timorese people;

Australian policy concerning refugees and the reuniting of families from East Timor: and

the disappearance of Australian journalists in East Timor’.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-I rise this evening to support the amendment moved by my colleague and friend, Senator Missen. It reads:

Leave out all the words after ‘That’, insert ‘there bc referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence the following matter:

The situation in the former Portuguese colony of East Timor, as it relates directly to Australia’s interests and responsibilities, and in particular-

Australian assistance to the East Timorese people;

b ) Australian policy concerning refugees and the reuniting of families from East Timor; and

the disappearance of Australian journalists in East Timor’.

I join my colleague, Senator Missen, in this debate with a sense of deep regret and sadness. It probably is well known that I had the opportunity, or perhaps the misfortune one might say, to visit the colony of East Timor some little time ago in company with my Opposition colleague from this place, Senator Gietzelt, and my Opposition colleague from the other place, Mr Ken Fry. I would like to go back to shortly before I had the opportunity of visiting the colony on 26 September 1975. I would like to relate to the Senate this evening the circumstances in which I became involved in and concerned with the plight of the people of East Timor.

After being away from my home I returned to the city of Brisbane. On arrival at the airport I rang my wife to let her know I had at least arrived safely at the airport and was on my way home. She informed me that she had received telephone messages from my secretary and from a person who was then much involved with East Timor. I learned that the person involved had contacted the then shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable Andrew Peacock- he now holds that portfolio- and asked him whether he would be prepared to go to East Timor. Unfortunately the then shadow Minister informed that person that it was not possible because he was involved with the coming of independence to Papua New Guinea. The person prevailed upon the shadow Minister to go to East Timor. The shadow Minister said: ‘I cannot do it. I suggest that you contact my friend and colleague, Senator Bonner, and ask him whether he would be prepared to go’.

Having received the message I contacted the person in Sydney. He told me of the conversation he had had with Mr Peacock. I am cautious when something like this occurs. I frankly and freely admit that I am not well versed in foreign affairs. I did not want to become involved in a foreign affairs matter. On the following day I contacted Mr Peacock to ask him the score. He said that he had been contacted by this person and that he had advised the person that he should contact me. He advised the person that I, of all the people in the Parliament, would perhaps be the person who should go to East Timor. He said: Nev, I really feel that you should go. It will help to broaden your outlook and to have an understanding of the relationships of other countries with us. I advise you to go ‘.

Consequently on 26 September 1975, in company with Senator Arthur Gietzelt and Mr Ken Fry from the other place, I arrived in Darwin en route to East Timor. I know that there has been and probably will be in the future some criticism of my friend and colleague, Senator Gietzelt. In this instance I want to say that I have the highest regard and respect for the part he played in our visit to East Timor. While we sit on opposite sides of this chamber and we may have differences of philosophy and ideology and in some cases we may be even diametrically opposed to each other, I say quite frankly and quite openly that I have nothing but the highest regard and respect for the part that he has played in relation to East Timor and for the part he played when we visited that unfortunate and sad place on 26 September 1975.

We flew from Darwin to Dili. I think it is important that I make these points known. We flew from Darwin in a twin-engined Cessna to Dili which is probably the nearest major centre of East Timor to Indonesian Timor. The flight took us approximately Vh. hours. It would take exactly the same time to fly from Darwin to Katharine in the Northern Territory. I think that is worth noting by the Australian people. As I found out later, it would take something like 7 minutes in one of our fighter aircraft to fly from Dili to Darwin. I think this is well worth knowing and remembering by the people of Australia when we talk about a situation that is nigh on our doorstep- a situation about which I believe as Australians we should be very concerned.

On arrival in Dili my 2 colleagues and I met with a number of people who at that time were probably in charge of most of East Timor. We spoke to the leaders of the Fretilin movement. I call it a movement rather than anything else because from my discussions with the people who were then leaders I can term it only as a movement- a movement of people concerned about their small country and the people in it and who wanted to work towards independence. Because of the problems that were then occurring in Portugal the Portuguese found it impossible to be able to carry on and take care of this small colony. The Governor who was there at the time withdrew with his garrison- his troops- and the people who were responsible for the administration of that small colony to a small island very close to East Timor. We had the opportunity of speaking with many people. One of them claimed to be the President of East Timor.

Whether he was self-appointed or whether he was appointed by the people I do not know. His name was Francisco Amaral. The Vice-President was Nicolai Reis Lobato. The SecretaryGeneral was Alarico Fernandes. The SecretaryGeneral (Political) was Jose Ramos Horta. The Military Commander was Rogerio Lobato. The Secretary Military Commander was Her.menegildo Alves.

We spoke to these people for quite a long time. I think we spent some 3 hours discussing various problems and what the people of East Timor were seeking. In company with Senator Gietzelt and Mr Ken Fry, a member of the other place, I questioned them very closely and received what I would term many pertinent answers to the questions I asked. When that meeting broke up those people took me aside. As I have said before in this chamber, perhaps because of the pigmentation of my skin they felt that they had something in common with me- a coloured man. They gave me the opportunity of meeting a lot of the people of East Timor. At that time they were seeking some humanitarian assistance from any country that was prepared to give it but particularly from Australia. They were seeking assistance in the form of medical supplies, foodstuffs, clothing and machinery to be able to work their farmlands so that they could look after their rice and coffee crops. They also thought that perhaps Australia would be able to assist them by being an arbitrator in the dispute that was taking place among the Fretilin movement, the Apodeti and the Timorese Democratic Union.

From what I could ascertain from talking to the people, it appears that after the withdrawal of the Portuguese Administrator and Governor and their troops there was an attempted coup by the UDT which was pro-Indonesian and wanted to be part of Indonesia. But the Fretilin movement wanted to work towards independence. Fretilin members were not talking about independence the next day, the next week or the next year. They were talking about independence in some 10 or 15 years time. They were not fools. They were not stupid people. They were people of great intelligence and understanding. They knew that they did not have the capacity at that time to become independent immediately. They wanted to work towards independence. They wanted assistance from countries like Australia. They would even have been prepared to accept assistance from Indonesia to achieve independence and to be able to determine their own future at their own rate and not at the rate that someone wanted to force upon them.

As I said, they took me aside, spoke to me and asked me to do a number of things. I listened to what they had to say. They asked me to go back to Australia and ask the Australian Government and the Australian people to give them the kind of assistance that I have already outlined. A number of people, and one person in particular, have said to me that I am naive in foreign affairs matters and that I do not understand them. That may well be so. But there is one thing I do know: That is people and how to communicate with them. I have, I believe, some capacity in that area. I talked to the Timorese people. I listened to them. I questioned them very closely. In relation to the humanitarian aid they were seeking from Australia, I said: ‘It is all very well for you to ask me to go back to my country and talk to my people and the Australian Government about giving aid to you in these troubled times. What assurance can I get from you that you will give this aid to all the people in East Timor whether they be supporters of Apodeti, UDT, Fretilin or whether they be just ordinary people?’ The President, Francisco Amaral, looked me in the eyes and said: ‘Senator, we do not want you to send this kind of aid and ask us to distribute it throughout our country. We ask you to send your Red Cross, the International Red Cross, or any non-political organisation from your country to distribute aid to all the East Timorese people. We do not feel that we would be impartial. But surely, if your Government and your people sent this aid and sent people to distribute it, it would be distributed fairly and impartially to all the people of East Timor. ‘

I do not think that one could ask for anything fairer than that. On top of that, the President said to me: ‘We also ask that the Australian people send a delegation to arbitrate between the 3 different groups in our country and to bring us together so that we can discuss these problems, sit down rationally and talk about them and do something about bringing our people together. At the moment we are unable to do that. The UDT is in one area. Apodeti is in another area. We are in another area. All we are doing is fighting among ourselves. While we fight among ourselves our people are being hurt in between. We ask you to go back to your country and ask the Australian people and the Australian Government to send a team of people to be arbitrators to help us to solve our problems.’ That is the kind of thing I learnt when I talked to the leaders of the Fretilin movement who have been accused, on many occasions by many people, of being on the extreme Left and of being communist. I wish to say this now and I wish all Australians to hear it: I would probably be the most ardent anti-communist in this country. I would be the first and only Aborigine to be an anticommunist. I have no truck with the extreme left wing. I have been accused of that because I have taken up the cudgels for a group of people who 1 believe are entitled at least to the consideration and the assistance of the free nations of this world which they have not had until this moment. Let people say no more that Neville Bonner is tied with the left wing or the communist movement. I have nothing to do with it. I believe I am a humanitarian. I have feelings for people who are suffering, particularly those who are suffering so close to our shores. During my visit to that country I found that the leaders of the Fretilin movement were no more communist than I am. What they said to me was this: ‘We are in a very serious situation and we need help. We are like a man who is drowning in a stream and if the free countries of the world. and Australia in particular, do not give us assistance and we are sinking then we will take help from wherever we can get it. ‘ The President, Francisco Xavier Do Amaral, said to me: ‘Senator Bonner, if you were drowning in a stream and a hand was stretched out to help you, would you question whether it was the hand of a communist, Christian or otherwise? No sir, you would grab it to save your life and that is what we will do if the time comes when we can get no help and can expect no help from other countries.’

I happened to return from East Timor a few hours earlier than Senator Gietzelt and Mr Ken Fry from the other place. On my return to Darwin, quite late in the evening, I rang my secretary and said: ‘Would you please, first thing tomorrow morning, while I am in transit from Darwin to Brisbane, contact the Prime Minister and ask him if he would be kind enough to grant me a few moments of his time as I believe I have some very important messages and I would like to relate them to him as they were given to me by the leaders of the Fretilin movement and the people of East Timor’. I think it is appropriate that I tell the Senate tonight, and the people of Australia, what my reception was on my return. I have before me a copy of an item which appeared in the Press on 29 September 1975. This report appeared in the Queensland Times published in Ipswich, Queensland. The headlines were in big black type, and maybe that is appropriate. The headline was:

Brush-off to Bonner. PM ‘too busy’ to hear Timor report.

The article stated:

The Prime Minister, Mr Gough Whitlam refused to listen to Senator Neville Bonner, when the Senator returned from Timor with information from Fretilin leaders.

Senator Bonner spent several hours in discussions with the President, Vice-President and Commander in Chief of the Fretilins- the majority party in East Timor.

That was my reception from the Prime Minister of Australia at that time when I returned from East Timor. In that same newspaper, the Queensland Times of 29 September 1975, the editorial was headed ‘Rebuffed by P.M.’. The editorial stated:

The Australian Government’s apparent lack of interest in the situation in Portuguese Timor has puzzled other people in addition to Senator Neville Bonner.

The Senator revealed at the weekend that he had been given the ‘brush-off’ by the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, when he attempted to deliver a message from the Fretilin leaders in Portuguese Timor.

Senator Bonner went to Timor with an Australian delegation to assess the situation there and he returned with first-hand information.

That information was completely ignored by the Prime Minister of the day. I am sorry that cartoons cannot be incorporated in Hansard. I only wish to God they could be. I am referring to a cartoon by McCrae which depicts some Indonesian volunteers in Timor and beneath it are the words:

Of course you’ve got the right to self-determination. You ‘ve got 10 seconds to make up your mind.

That is the kind of thing that happened in East Timor during the takeover by Indonesia. The Australian Financial Review of Tuesday, 9 December 1975, carried an editorial headed ‘Mr Peacock “regrets”, and Mr Whitlam “deplores”.’. That editorial stated:

It is interesting to note the careful language which Australian political leaders are using in the wake of Indonesia ‘s invasion of Portuguese Timor.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Peacock, says he regrets the Indonesian action. Former Prime Minister Whitlam says he deplores it.

Nobody condemns it.

The truth of the matter is that no Australian political leader is prepared to condemn it because both sides are tied to a policy of extreme conciliation towards the Indonesians.

I repeat:

The truth of the matter is that no Australian political leader is prepared to condemn it because both sides are tied to a policy of extreme conciliation towards the Indonesians.

I repeated that statement because I believe it should be indelibly imprinted on the minds of the Australian people. The editorial continued:

Australia is learning the price of living with a very volatile giant on its doorstep.

Senator Knight:

-Where did that statement appear?

Senator BONNER:

– I am quoting from the Australian Financial Review of Tuesday. 9 December 1975. The editorial continued:

Ever since the Sukarno days when Indonesia almost went communist it has been the firm policy of Australia to keep on side with the fervently anti-communist military Government in Jakarta.

In many respects it has been a successful policy. Australia and Indonesia have enjoyed harmonious relations for two such geographically close, but culturally diverse nations.

Problems on the border between Papua New Guinea and West Irian have been settled in a very cordial way, and Australia has developed a program of long-term military and civil aid in Indonesia.

This style of relationship reached its peak during the Labor years when Mr Whitlam and President Suharto exchanged private visits.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has actively encouraged this relationship, as it properly sees a stable and secure Indonesia as vital for Australia.

In this context both the department and political leaders are being quite cynical about the East Timorese. They see the Indonesian takeover as far and away the tidiest solution to the whole problem.

Tidy for Indonesia and tidy for Australia. The fact that it is not so tidy for the East Timorese is just one of those things.

What else happened? On 4 October 1975, some little time after my return from East Timor, the Queensland Times in Ipswich, the newspaper published in my home city, printed an article headed ‘Bonner challenged on Timor Report’. That article stated:

Treasurer and Federal Member for Oxley, Mr Bill Hayden today challenged Senator Neville Bonner to produce a detailed written report on the unfortunate events in Portuguese Timor.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Hear, hear!

Senator BONNER:

– Well you may croak, you squatter. That newspaper article also stated:

Senator Bonner is only one of many Members of Parliament who visited Timor. There is no evidence he has any more expertise in Timorese affairs, or that he has any greater insight into the problems of the region than any other MP or Senator who has visited Timor in recent times. ‘

The honourable member said that yet two members of his own Party were in my company when I visited that country. Expertise? What more expertise do you need than to speak with people and to know the suffering of the people, to understand them and to be able to be identified with their suffering? What expertise do you need to understand the suffering of people? You do not need expertise. If you do, then my God I would have more expertise than anybody else in this Parliament because I have suffered. I have known discrimination, hunger and everything else. Many honourable senators in this chamber would not have the slightest conception of these things. I come from a race of people who have gone through, to some extent, what the East

Timorese people are going through at this moment.

I have a paper here that I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, with the permission of the Senate. It is addressed to all members of the Australian Parliament so I do not know that I need to show it to other honourable senators. I am sure that they all would have received a copy of a circular from the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace.

Senator Keeffe:

– Is that the first statement?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)- Is leave granted?

Senator Keeffe:

– We went though this last night. I merely asked the question: Is that the first statement issued by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace?

Senator BONNER:
Senator Keeffe:

– I have no objection.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThere being no objection, leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT

The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, a body sponsored by the Catholic Bishops of Australia, urges all members of the Australian Parliament to support the establishment of a full and impartial parliamentary inquiry into all aspects of the East Timor situation.

East Timor has been oneof the Commission’s main concerns since November 27 1975, when it called on the Australian Government to ‘protest vigorously to the Indonesian Government at the reported Indonesian attack on the town of Atabae in East Timor’ and to ‘take all possible steps towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict, at the heart of which is the right of the East Timorese people to determine their own future.’

In its statement on March 14 1976, the Commission enunciated its policy on East Timor. The Australian Government was asked to work towards a cessation of the fighting, to support a genuine act of self-determination in which all political groupings could participate, to seek the withdrawal of all Indonesian troops, to press for the admission of international humanitarian aid into East Timor and to provide facilities to enable refugees to be brought to Australia and accommodated here.

The Australian Government subsequently developed a policy which was very similar to that of the Commission and which received widespread public support from all sections of the Australian community; the Catholic Bishops, meeting in Conference, issued a statement on September 7 1976 which stated in part:

The Bishops wish to express support for the Australian Government’s policy on East Timor and for the Government’s efforts in attempting to secure the admission of international humanitarian aid into the territory. The Bishops encourage the Australian Government to pursue its policy in all appropriate forums. ‘

In a Press Release issued on December 6 1976 the Commission pointed out that there was a serious conflict between the Government’s stated policy and its recent actions, which included Australia’s abstention from voting at the United Nations on a resolution, the substance of which was in complete agreement with the stated policy of the Government. The Commission also urged the Government to give top priority to East Timorese refugees in Portugal and argued that Australia had a special responsibility in this case.

A full and impartial parliamentary inquiry would enable a thorough evaluation of present and past responses to all aspects of the East Timor situation and would be an excellent mechanism for providing factual information to the Australian community. This last is most important; genuine democracy is impossible without a well-informed electorate.

There is an increasing interest in the Australian community in foreign and refugee policies. If Parliament does not take a leading role in informing public opinion then it would be abrogating one of its most basic responsibilities.

MAURO DI NICOLA National Secretary.

Senator BONNER:

– Thank you. An article in a newspaper report was headed:

Australian Press attacked over Timor charge

I shall read an extract from that article. It was written by Hamish McDonald. The article states:

Mr Malik did not explicitly deny the report, but said: ‘Australian troops had also killed many people from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam during the war there ‘.

The Indonesian people are saying that because we were involved in those wars, that should surely excuse what has happened in East Timor and many of the allegations which have been made by many people. Quite properly the person in the forefront of these allegations has been none other than our Australian, Mr Dunn. The article continues:

Mr Malik, who was waving his hands in the air, said: ‘Let it become a major issue. Fifty thousand people or perhaps even 80 000 might have been killed during the war in Timor, but we saved 600 000 of them ‘.

Mr Malik did not further clarify his remarks. He was speaking to Indonesian Pressmen on his return to Jakarta, from election campaigning in Sumatra.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Is that Mr Malik?

Senator BONNER:

-That is Mr Malik, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia. We are not asking Australia to go into Indonesia with guns blazing. We are not asking Australia to go into East Timor with guns blazing. All we are asking is that an investigation be carried out by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence We are asking for an investigation to be carried out and for the allegations to be looked at but not only as far as the Australian people are concerned. I would think and hope that Indonesia would welcome an investigation into the various allegations which have been made of atrocities in East Timor. I hope that Indonesia and we as Australian people will welcome an investigation and that we will look at the allegations to ascertain whether there is any truth in them. We are not seeking to interfere with the internal affairs of Indonesia, despite the fact that people are saying we are. It has been said to me that we should not interfere with the internal affairs of Indonesia. We are not interfering with the internal affairs of Indonesia because until now the Australian Government, the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs have not recognised the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia. We are asking for an investigation into a country which, as far as Indonesia and Australia are concerned, is independent. We do not recognise the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia.

In my opinion and in the opinion of thousands of Australians we would not be offending the Indonesian people if they have nothing to hide. The only way we would be offending them would be if they had something to hide. I hope they will be decent and democratic enough to welcome a look at these allegations which have been made by many of the people who have come from East Timor. People in Australia, people in Portugal and Mr Dunn, who is a most highly respected and decent Australian, have made these allegations. If Mr Dunn is right, let us hear about the matter, let us find out. If he is wrong, let us find out about that too. If the allegations which have been made by hundreds of people are wrong, then, for the sake of Australia, let us find out. Let us find out for our own peace of mind.

When I was in that country one of the things which touched me most was when I was taken around to meet many of the men 50, 55, 60 and 70 years of age. Immediately they were told that I came from Australia they threw their arms around me and they said: ‘Thank you, thank you. Australia come. Australia come at last. We now are saved. Australia will come and help us’. Australia came all right! Australia did not come at all. They said: ‘We remember those bad times when Japanese troops come down and we fight alongside of Australian. Australian people, they fought alongside of us. Many of them went back to Australia.’ Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President, many Australians came back to Australia to fight again and to win that war. But at what expense? It was at the expense of the lives of many, many East Timorese people. Shame! I say: ‘Shame, Australia! ‘ Australia has a shame which I believe it will long live to regret. Today where stands the Returned Services League? Where stand the fathers, the sons, the daughters of those who came back from East Timor to fight again? The

East Timorese people paid the supreme sacrifice that those people might come back.

The only crime of those old men. those dear, sweet, wonderful people who spoke to me, was that they were so naive. They believed that we would come to their rescue. Because of their naivety they paid with their lives. I paid too. I will pay as long as I live for being so naive. But, thank God, the only thing I will have to pay with is my conscience. I hope the conscience of the people of Australia will be pricked. I hope the conscience of the people in this chamber tonight will be pricked and that they will support the amendment so ably moved by my colleague, Senator Missen, who also has shown his humane and sincere attitude towards the people who are unable at this moment to protect themselves. The least we can do is have a full investigation into the facts surrounding what has happened in East Timor. Surely that is the least we can ask of this Parliament and the least we can ask of the Australian people.

We were certainly found wanting at the time, when we could have done most. I do not excuse my Government. I believe it, too, has blood on its hands. I believe that the present Prime Minister and the present Minister for Foreign Affairs are as guilty as the previous Minister for Foreign Affairs and the previous Prime Minister. They, too, have done little or nothing compared with what they could have done. Maybe tonight we can begin to right some of the wrongs by supporting this amendment. If this amendment is defeated I will support the motion moved by the Opposition. As I said in a television and radio interview, it is not a matter of me threatening to cross the floor; I am making a categorical statement. I support the amendment moved by my colleague and I will support the motion moved by the Opposition if the amendment is defeated.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-This debate has gone on for a considerable period and I hope that I can keep my contribution to it in line with an attitude of calm compassion. I appreciate all the things that were said by Senator Bonner. It is not often on matters of major policy that we are in agreement but tonight I think he spoke on behalf of many people, not only those living in this country but also those living in Timor. I want it to be known too that I am making my contribution to this debate without any hatred for the Indonesian people. I was associated with them during World War II when they were having their struggle against the invaders. 1 spent a considerable time in hospital towards the end of World War II- many months, as a matter of fact- with fellow patients who were Indonesians. That was their struggle for freedom at that time. Subsequent political events have changed the face of Indonesia and today the Indonesians have become dedicated to another style of government. It is unfortunate that not only in East Timor but also in West Irian there is that type of government which at times is prepared to use the power of force and the power of the gun.

I want to say, as did Senator Bonner, that the Fretilin organisation is not a communist organisation. There are people in this country who brand nationalist organisations as communist. They have been doing it for the last 30 years. Ever since the cessation of World War II it has been a popular tag game. The fact is that people have struggled, starved and died just for the right to live and for nothing else. It was not to have the luxuries of life but merely to have the right to survive, and because there have been demonstrations and insurrections those people are broadly classified as communists. The Fretilin organisation is not a communist organisation and those people in Australia who have classified it as such ought to be ashamed of their words and thoughts. We do not seek, by the moving of this motion, to set up a select committee to create a crisis in Indonesia or an international crisis. All that we say ought to happen is that there be a proper and thorough investigation of the events over the last few months in East Timor and in a few moments I shall quote the chronological sequence of events in Timor.

One of the significant factors is that at no time has the United Nations delegation been allowed to enter East Timor to carry out a proper and uninhibited inspection. The Australian Red Cross has not been allowed into Timor at any time and we do not look like getting the opportunity to go there. No other independent organisations are allowed into East Timor either. If these independent examinations are not allowed then surely there must be something to hide. Our fingers are not clean either. We are arguing over the technicality of whether people from East Timor ought to be called evacuees or refugees. We have gone on with a lot of pin pricking that has not helped the Timorese people at all, and many people have come from that country to Australia before and since the invasion. Senator Bonner quoted from one of today’s newspapers only in part and I want to quote the rest of the article because it is revealing. It appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, was written by Hamish McDonald and carried the date line Jakarta, Wednesday. It read:

A report that Indonesian forces had used napalm in East Timor, drew bitter accusations today against Australia, and the Australian Press from the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr Malik.

Mr Malik called on the Indonesian Press to carry out a massive campaign against the Australian media which he said were treating Indonesia badly over East Timor.

That is not true. This is one issue on which the Australian Press has been fairly objective and this criticism by Mr Malik is less than justified. The article goes on to say:

He was commenting on a report from Washington broadcast on Radio Australia which quoted unnamed United States State Department sources as saying that Indonesian forces had used napalm against the nationalist Fretilin movement late last year.

An official State Department spokesman was quoted as saying that the United States Government believed that napalm was not being used now and that the United States had not supplied any napalm to Indonesia.

Mr Malik did not explicitly deny the report, but said: ‘Australian troops had also killed many people from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam during the war there ‘.

And that is to the eternal shame of this country. It is to the eternal shame of the Government which held power during our invasion, and it was an invasion of Vietnam by our troops. It is to our eternal shame that 500 young Australian kids were killed in that war and that the best part of 2000 lives were ruined as a result of wounds, physical and mental. The report continued:

Mr Malik, who was waving his hands in the air, said: ‘Let it become a major issue: 50 000 people or perhaps even 80 000 might have been killed during the war in Timor . . .’

That was the paragraph which Senator Bonner quoted. Nobody is sure how many people were killed but in another type of invasion, assisted by the United States Central Intelligence Agency, in Indonesia some years ago at the time of the overthrow of Sukarno a large number of people were killed. It was our friend, the late Harold Holt, who was at that time the Prime Minister of Australia who said, when talking at a state function in New York: ‘Who cares if you knock over half a million commos’. That is not the attitude we ought to take. The blood bath in Indonesia at that time was almost as tremendous as the blood bath which those people went through at the time of the Japanese invasion.

Senator Gordon Mcintosh, who has played a leading role in publicising the problems of East Timor, is not here tonight but he has passed on some notes on the chronological order of events and I want to read them into the record. During September and November the Fretilin Party waited in vain for the Portuguese to return and continue with their decolonisation process. We will recall that after the upheavals in Portugal there was an attempt to decolonise Timor. On 1 1 November 1975 there was a bloodless coup in Australia and from 2.30 p.m. on 1 1 November 1975 Australia lived under a security blanket which virtually amounted to martial law. It even led to the barring of telephones in Parliament House. It led to the mobilisation secretly of the military forces of this country.

Senator Withers:

– Oh, rubbish!

Senator KEEFFE:

– There is no rubbish about it. The Governor-General himself held lengthy discussions with the chiefs of the armed forces in case something went wrong and there is clear evidence of that and the honourable senator should not run away from it.

Senator Withers:

– Where is the evidence? Put down the evidence.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am not going to argue about it.

Senator Withers:

– You have chickened out again. Put down the evidence and withdraw the allegations.

Senator KEEFFE:

– There is tons of evidence. It has been published widely and the honourable senator knows it. He did not contradict it before so I do not know why he is so touchy and trying to contradict it now. These are the sorts of conditions under which people have to live. On 28 November 1975, Fretilin declared independence in Timor and set up its provisional government. On 2 December 1975, Senator Mcintosh’s secretary received a telephone call from Francisco Xavier Do Amoral, President of East Timor. He telephoned from Dili and said:

We are very thankful for the support from the Australian people and also from the trade union movement but we are quite sad for the attitude of the Australian Government.

We are not asking that the caretaker Australian Government recognises our independence but we feel we are right in asking them to help in stopping the Indonesian invasion into our territory. Our territory has been bombed night and day by Indonesian warships, helicopters, aeroplanes and tanks. At the moment there is a heavy offensive on the villages of Batugade, Balibo and Atabae

We feel the caretaker Australian Government are closing their eyes to our case.

I request Senator Mcintosh to give us some support and also to visit our country as soon as possible.

On 7 December 1975- incidentally, that date coincides with the anniversary of the Pearl Harbour attack on 7 December 1941- a full scale invasion of Timor by the Indonesians took place. The Federal election in Australia took place on 13 December 1975. Today in another place one of my colleagues raised the question of a discussion that took place between the present Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock) when he was the shadow Foreign Minister and certain people in Indonesia. The evidence he gave disclosed very unfortunate circumstances and very unfortunate conversations. That story will be published in the House of Representatives Hansard. I ask everybody to read it. I want to go on now to give some of the historical references to Timor which I think are of very great importance. Australia’s concern about Timor in the past- I am talking now of at least 25 or 30 years ago- was primarily as an element in the defence of Australia- During the Second World War the Australian and Dutch troops fought a vigorous and courageous campaign against the Japanese in this area. I want to quote from the references to Timor made by a writer, Ms Helen Hill. She states:

The 2/2 Independent Company of Australian Commandos fought a guerilla war in the mountains of Timor against the Japanese for some 1 8 months before they were relieved by another independent company, the 2/4. Although fewer than 400 in number, they succeeded in holding down 20 000 Japanese troops, killing 1500 of them and losing only 40 of their own men. But hundreds of Timorese were killed by the Japanese because they had helped the Australians; many towns, including Dili were destroyed by Allied bombing and even larger losses of life resulted due to the famine which the fighting precipitated. After the war a number of Timorese were evacuated to Austrafia when the Australian forces were finally withdrawn.

In one of the first statements on Timor in the Australian parliament Dr Evatt said in October 1943 ‘As a result of the war, Australia must show a particular interest in the welfare system of control of these islands and territories that lie close to our shores. From the point of view of defence, trade and transport, most of them can be fairly described as coming within an extended Australian zone . . . Timor, part of which is Portuguese and part Dutch, was of importance to the overseas air services between Australia and Europe. The island in enemy hands is a constant threat to Australia. If properly placed within the zone of Australian security it would become a bastion of our defence. ‘

The importance of Timor to Australia in terms of defence ploys has been fairly well discussed over a period of at least three-quarters of a century. Many references can be found well back over the years. Mr Peter Hastings, who wrote a paper on the Timor problem, produced a number of pertinent points. I want to read those also. He states:

On 23 December 1904, the Northern Territory Times in Darwin quoted Captain John Strachan, a local identity and master of a trading vessel, as stating unequivocally that Germany was negotiating for the purchase of Timor Island, situated within only a few hours steam of this port’.

Those were the words of Captain Strachan. The paper continued:

The Times observed that ‘the acquisition of Timor Island by Australia was advocated years ago by Captain Strachan . . . and if the report that Germany is nibbling for its possession be true, the fact . . . would appear to be worth seriously cogitating over by our Federal rulers’.

I read a further reference by Mr Peter Hastings of the events at a later date:

British and Australian suspicions of Japanese intentions were well aroused by the late 1930s and in 1937 the British Government dispatched one of its Senior Vice-Consuls at Batavia, E. T. Lambert, to visit and report on Portuguese Timor, especially on the degree of Japanese penetration. He found the Governor. Major da Fontoura, pro-British, apprehensive of increasing Japanese commercial encroachment, about the real purposes of which he was in no doubt, and anxious to counter it by promoting trade and shipping links with Australia, a proposal which had Lisbon’s firm but discreet support.

From early in 1941 until the outbreak of the Pacific War. the Australian Government viewed the possibility of Timor falling into Japanese hands with mounting alarm. With the actual occupation of Timor by a strong enemy force only nine weeks after Pearl Harbour and only six days after the fall of Singapore. Canberra’s worst fears were not only confirmed but rapidly elevated into strategic doctrine- believed in by both Australian political parties and held tenaciously until 1952, when it could no longer prevail against the realities of the nuclear age- that Timor, particularly Portuguese Timor, was crucial to the defence of Australia,

In the early months of 1941 the Australian War Cabinet became increasingly concerned with the possibility of a Japanese attack on Portuguese Timor. However, during the early years of World War II, the Portuguese sent troops to the area to relieve the Dutch and Australian troops. Mr Hastings’ paper continues:

The Portuguese got within 300 miles of Sumatra where they were virtually ordered by Japan to proceed no further. This event provoked one of the first statements made on the importance of Portuguese Timor, from Dr Evatt, in the House of Representatives on 25 February 1942.

This was the time of the virtually unstemmed southern advance of the Japanese. The paper continues:

There were frequent references to Timor in the House thereafter, particularly to the resistance being put up by the Australian Commando Company, but the first significant indication of Australian thinking about the future of Timor was in a speech by Dr Evatt in the course of a debate on international affairs on 14 October 1943. ‘As the result of the war, Australia must show a particular interest in the welfare and system of control of those islands and territories that lie close to our shores. From the point of view of defence, trade and transport, most of them can be fairly described as coming within an extended Australian zone. ‘ Dr Evatt went on to describe Australian interest in New Guinea, the Solomons, the New Hebrides and New Caledonia, which ‘is of vital concern to Australia’. He added that while ‘we envisage the restoration of full French sovereignty … we also regard it as essential that in relation to defence, air transport and trade, there should be a very close and intimate relationship between Australia and New Caledonia’. The concept of ‘an Australian zone’ was one Dr Evatt also extended to Portuguese Timor.

That is when he said, and I repeat again:

The island in enemy hands is a constant threat to Australia. If properly placed within the zone of Australian security, it would become a bastion of defence.

During this period, the Portuguese had stated repeatedly that they welcomed joint cooperation with Australia in regard to Timor.

However, these were hollow words. Mr Peter Hastings states further in his paper:

On October 1 1 the British High Commissioner in Canberra, Sir Ronald Cross, wrote to Mr Curtin stating that Dr Salazar had requested the British Ambassador in Lisbon to inform the Commonwealth Government that ‘the Portuguese Government accepted with pleasure the idea of discussing the problems relating to a common defence against possible future aggression and to the possible development of economic relations between Timor and Australia . . . and a general commercial agreement which might cover air communications’. The discussions were never held. Portugal, obviously had not obtained a guarantee that its colonies were safe from annexation in order to risk losing them through opening them to post-war commercial exploitation.

So in the first instance it was the Portuguese people who largely held up any sort of development in this area. I think most of us are aware that there were great problems while East Timor was a Portuguese colony, which extended over a long period, but there is no evidence that any Australian government tried to ease out that situation.

I think we might now perhaps refer to the Liberal Party policy in these matters. As early as 1944 Sir Percy Spender took issue with the Labor Government for having said on a previous occasion, according to Hastings: . . when the war came to an end he and his Government desired to see sovereignty over New Caledonia and Timor returned to France and Portugal respectively . . . if he means that complete sovereignty shall be returned to those countries in both those areas, which I regard as most vital to the safety of this country, then I take issue with him. We shall make a great mistake if New Caledonia and Timor are returned to the unqualified possession of France and Portugal.’ Dr Evatt interjected to remind Mr Spender that the Menzies Government had promised to restore French sovereignty in New Caledonia. Mr Spender rejoined, ‘1 say deliberately that it would be a false step to return New Caledonia to France and Timor to Portugal unless bases were given us . . .’

So there was going to be a way around the situation. There is further evidence of Australia’s long standing interest in Timor which has been set out by Peter Hastings. It is a rather lengthy document so I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. A copy has been given to the Minister and a copy has been left on your desk, Mr Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)- Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

In point of fact Evatt obviously shared Spender’s view that Portuguese Timor was an essential element in Australia’s north-western defence, as the war had demonstrated, but how in looming times of peace could it be tied into an Australian defensive system?

Evatt clearly continued to pin his public hopes on Lisbon ‘s promises of Australian-Portuguese discussions, which were not forthcoming, while suppressing his private irritations with Lisbon, as in the 194S negotiations over the Japanese surrender in Timor, in which Portugal wanted its troops to participate. In the event the Australian commander, Brigadier Dyke, received the surrender of all Japanese forces on Timor on September 1 1 at Koepang. This clearly made the question of Portuguese participation irrelevant but not before there had been some terse exchanges on the part of Canberra with London and Lisbon. On August 28 Bruce cabled External Affairs stating that the Portuguese Ambassador had been to see him ‘to invoke my help in ensuring that the surrender of the Japanese in Portuguese Timor would be to the Portuguese authorities and nobody else. I told the Ambassador that I did not think he had anything to worry about . . . ‘ This was an instance where Bruce showed he was quite disastrously out of touch with feeling in Canberra. The Australian Government was very exercised about the manner indeed. Bruce added,

I took advantage of my close personal relations with him to ask him privately how he thought his Government would react to the suggestion for a lease of Portuguese Timor to Australia for a hundred years … his reply was that such a suggestion would touch Portugal in her most sensitive spot, namely her prestige … I suggested that I presumed Portugal would . . . give us all the facilities that were required in respect to defence, communications or trade provided Portugal’s sovereignty was respected. The Ambassador’s reply was that … he thought we could get agreement . . . to anything we want.

This proved totally misleading, as did most Portuguese promises. On the same day, August 28, Canberra cabled London summarising Australian views- no facilities should be given to enable Portuguese forces to reach Timor: the Japanese surrender should be to Australian forces only: interim arrangements for the restoration of the Administration, communications etc. should be made direct between Australian forces of occupation and whatever local Portuguese Administration is still in existence’ (this was tantamount to a threat of administrative takeover) and that these interim arrangements should be with a view to the conclusion of a long term arrangement with the Portuguese Government including as a minimum the objectives of the 1943 understanding’. The Australian message, revealing a new mood of nationalism, made two other points, equally blunt. ‘The Portuguese failed us completely in the arrangements made for the defence of Timor . . . and as a result our forces were left to sustain single handed . . for a long period an epic guerilla warfare’ and as a result should not be part of the surrender. The other ‘important point in our consideration of this matter is of course the welfare of the native people of Portuguese Timor which has been notoriously neglected by the administration. We submit that in this territory and elsewhere in the South- West Pacific surrender arrangements should not prejudice readjustments found desirable in the interests of security and welfare always subject, naturally, to the consent of the powers concerned.’ This revealed not only a new Australian preoccupation with the welfare of the indigenous population in colonial dependencies but contained more than a hint that the Australian Government would consider strong measures to ensure that Portuguese Timor was physically included in any future Australian strategic framework.

As a precautionary measure Canberra signalled General Blarney in simitar terms. On August 30 the Dominions Secretary replied more in sorrow than in anger. The United Kingdom Government, said Addison, the new Labour Dominions Secretary, could not with ‘any justification’, once the Japanese surrender was signed, delay the Portuguese sloop then at Colombo or prevent ‘other sloops from sailing from

Lourenco Marques direct to Timor if and when the Portuguese Government so desire ‘. Moreover, suggestion that Australian troops should temporarily occupy Portuguese Timor or that interim arrangements should be made for the administration of the colony as suggested . . . would, we feel, certainly be rejected by the Portuguese Government, would arouse great suspicion in their mind and [they] would claim that any such proposal was contrary to the undertaking given them in the name of the Commonwealth Government on 14 September 1943 regarding the maintenance of Portuguese sovereignty in her colonial possessions after the war.

On September 3 External Affairs cabled the Dominions Secretary suggesting that the Governor of Portuguese Timor should attend the surrender but not Portuguese forces which have taken no part in the war … It would be highly incongruous if Portugal which has been an acquiescent spectator in the Pacific War were to be more than a spectator at the surrender to a victor state . . .’ The cable continued, we originally sent forces to Portuguese Timor at your request . . . further, to help . . . with the Azores Agreement we acquiesced in recognition of Portuguese sovereignty but this was on distinct understanding that there should be conversations between Portugal and Australia with a view to defence and economic arrangements respecting Portuguese Timor. There would be complete lack of justice and frankness if these conversations were postponed indefinitely instead of being taken up immediately … as you will be aware … it is our view that Portuguese vacillation and timidity in the face of Japanese aggression have shown them to be unfit to be entrusted with the defence of territory so important to the security of this area. In our opinion there is much to be said for the solution of placing this territory under the Trusteeship system of the United Nations with emphasis on the security clauses of that system … for these reasons we think you should help us to resist . . . precipitate re-establishment of status quo without regard to our bitter experience in Pacific War.

Senator KEEFFE:

– These historical references establish Australia’s long standing interest in Timor for strategic purposes, but particularly for humanitarian purposes. In other words, what we ought to have been doing over a long period was to establish a proper trading relationship with the people, to establish upgraded communications with East Timor and to exchange tourists; but we never really got around to doing that in the way in which one would expect it ought to have been done

I have a copy of another letter which was written by an Indonesian journalist on 7 April 1 976, several months after the invasion. I shall not quote all of it but just three or four paragraphs which I think have some bearing on the matter under discussion. The letter confirms information sent to Australia by Fretilin leaders in East Timor after the invasion on 7 December 1975. The letter read:

During the December 7 invasion in Dili, I heard there were already 10 battalions- about 10 thousand people- Indonesian soldiers in Timor from the Navy, Air Force, Army, and even from the Police (Mobile Brigade). The Dili invasion was well planned. The Army troops intermingled with the anti-Fretilin forces would invade Dili from the West and South. That’s why there were 2 ‘movements’: a long march along the northern coast from BatugadeMaubaraLiquica to Dili, and another group tried to march along the mountain roads from Bobonaro-Atsabe, Aileu to Dili. But it seems that this last group failed because of the wet monsoon and Fretilin forces in the highlands.

The group marching on to Dili along the northern coast was protected by the Naval forces, who had built strongholds in the island of Alor (East Nusa Tenggara) and Wetar (Maluku) ( 1 ). The Alor base was meant as a stepping-stone to invade Dili, and We tar was the stronghold to invade Baucau. . . . The occupation of Dili and later the march from Baucau to Dili was meant to invade the capital from four directions. But not all succeeded . . .

This was due partly to monsoons, partly to transport problems and so on. The letter continues:

Actually it is no secret any more in Indonesia. Especially in Jakarta, where the Army hospital (RS Gatot Subroto) and the Airforce hospital at Halim airbase is overflooded with war victims. And what makes it more tragic is that the families- even their wives- are not allowed to visit their husbands in the hospital. At the same time, news that many Indonesian soldiers were killed by the Timorese is just trickling down in Jakarta and whole Java. So knowing that your husband, son or father has to go to Timor is nearly as shocking as a death trial/penalty. So, when I saw troops coming back from Timor last month (red berets), I was not surprised to see them so delightful, released, talkative because they have escaped from hell. But to be correct, the battle front is hell but life in Dili- as they tell it- has its bright colours, too.

He went on to mention a number of easier things Indonesian soldiers experienced when they invaded Timor. Those were a few quotations from a fairly well documented record written by an Indonesian who was not happy about what went on. The most interesting thing about that particular letter, of course, is that it was written by an Indonesian and it corroborated the stories that came out of East Timor from refugees and from people who were able to send out radio messages. One of the great tragedies about this time was the loss of a number of Australian journalists. There seems to be pretty clear evidence that all of them are now dead, including Roger East.

What is our Government’s present reaction to the invasion? It seems to be this attitude: ‘Let us put it off and it will go away’. We only want to hold the inquiry to ascertain the real facts of the case. There is nothing to stop the committee, particularly a select committee, from calling evidence from a whole variety of areas. The establishment of the committee is not designed to upset the Indonesians, as I said at the outset. One of the bigger donations we have made towards peace in East Timor has been to give the Indonesians a number of patrol boats, the first of which they now have taken over. One of the significant things- it would be almost humourous if circumstances were not so serious- is that the first of the fast patrol boats handed over as a gift from Australia has a top speed of 30 knots, with possibly 35 knots after modifications. This compares with the official top speed of Australia’s fleet of PBs of ‘more than’ 20 knots. The first of the new boats were handed over on 1 8 February. I have obtained these details from a newspaper report dated 25 February 1977. 1 have a further letter which I believe will be of considerable interest to honourable senators who are participating in this debate, to those people who are listening and to those people who will read what has been said.

Senator Withers:

– Not many are listening.

Senator KEEFFE:

– The Minister should not adopt a facetious attitude.

Senator Withers:

– There are about 6 persons Listening.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is not a right attitude to adopt. The letter is written on official Senate letterhead paper and reads as follows: 7 November 1975

Rev. R. Wootton, 87 Powlett Street, East Melbourne 3002. Dear Rev. Wootton,

Australian Apathy on Timor

May I acknowledge, through you, the circular letter sent to me by you in common with some six other signatories on the above subject.

I am deeply concerned about the events in East Timor and doubly so because, during World War II, I was a member of Sparrow Force which served on that Island. Although I spent i lost of my time in the western end, I did visit the Portugese colony on a number of occasions and had an excellent opportunity to study it and its people.

As you may know, the Federal Opposition has constantly appealed to the Government to take action, particularly in conjunction with our regional neighbours. There has been no response.

I myself have communicated with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, urging that everything possible be done to ensure the maintenance of food supply (which shows signs of running out) and proper medical famines, including general medical screening. I have talked with doctors who have come back from the colony, who stress the need for such services.

The Island creates a very real dilemma. The Timorese people have a sturdy sense of independence, and hostilities between the two ends of the Island have persisted ever since the days of Magellan and of the Dutch East India Company, “here are great dissimilarities in race, religion, language and culture

On the other hand, the major difficulty is that the colony is sub-economic and requires a proper system of international aid. What it needs is an impartial intervention at the international level to restore peace, to bring about a stable economy and to set up effective methods of self-determination.

There is very real danger of attempts at subversion from outside the colony. There are those who would like to see an unstable region, particularly in the lesser Sunda Group. I attach a copy of a press statement put out by our Shadow

Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Peacock. In it he attacks the apathy of the Government and urges action at an international level.

I will be grateful if you will acknowledge this communication to the other signatories.

The letter was signed ‘for J. L. Carrick, Senator for New South Wales’. Those are compassionate words. I wonder what has changed the attitude of the Australian Government. There is a further letter from the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, which is the second document and not the one apparently referred to tonight by Senator Bonner. The first paragraph states:

The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, a body sponsored by the Catholic Bishops of Australia, urges all members of the Australian Parliament to support the establishment of a full and impartial parliamentary inquiry into all aspects of the East Timor situation.

The letter went on to quote from the statement which has been incorporated by Senator Bonner and I will not read that section into the record. The second last paragraph states:

A full and impartial parliamentary inquiry would enable a thorough evaluation of present and past responses to all aspects of the East Timor situation and would be an excellent mechanism for providing factual information to the Australian community. This last is most important; genuine democracy is impossible without a well-informed electorate.

Those too are words of compassion. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate that document in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Mulvihill)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

page 744

CATHOLIC COMMISSION FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE

23 March 1977.

To all Members of the Australian Parliament

The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, a body sponosored by the Catholic Bishops of Australia, urges all members of the Australian Parliament to support the establishment of a full and impartial parliamentary inquiry into all aspects of the East Timor situation.

East Timor has been one of the Commission’s main concerns since November 27 1975, when it called on the Australian Government to ‘protest vigorously to the Indonesian Government at the reported Indonesian attack on the town of Ataba in East Timor’ and to ‘take all possible steps towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict, at the heart of which is the right of the East Timorese people to determine their own future.’

In its statement on March 14 1976, the Commission enunciated its policy on East Timor. The Australian Government was asked to work towards a cessation of the fighting, to support a genuine act of self-determination in which all political groupings could participate, to seek the withdrawal of all Indonesian troops, to press for the admission of international humanitarian aid into East Timor and to provide facilities to enable refugees to be brought to Australia and accommodated here.

The Australian Government subsequently developed a policy which was very similar to that of the Commission and which received widespread public support from all sections of the Australian community; the Catholic Bishops, meeting in Conference, issued a statement on September 7 1976 which stated in part:

The Bishops wish to express support for the Australian Government’s policy on East Timor and for the Government’s efforts in attempting to secure the admission of international humanitarian aid into the territory. The Bishops encourage the Australian Government to pursue its policy in all appropriate forums.’

In a Press Release issued on December 6 1976 the Commission pointed out that there was a serious conflict between the Government’s stated policy and its recent actions, which included Australia’s abstention from voting at the United Nations on a resolution, the substance of which was in complete agreement with the stated policy of the Government. The Commission also urged the Government to give top priority to East Timorese refugees in Portugal and argued that Australia had a special responsibility in this case.

A full and impartial parliamentary inquiry would enable a thorough evaluation of present and past responses to all aspects of the East Timor situation and would be an excellent mechanism for providing factual information to the Australian community. This last is most important: genuine democracy is impossible without a well-informed electorate.

There is an increasing interest in the Austraiian community in foreign and refugee policies. If Parliament docs not take a leading role in informing public opinion then it would be abrogating one of its most basic responsibilities.

MAURODI NICOLA National Secretary

Senator KEEFFE:

– As my final contribution to the debate, I want to say that I believe implicity in everything that I have said and quoted from tonight. I believe that the Australian people and the people in this and other parts of the world must be prepared to face up to the problems of East Timor. We must be prepared to help, and set up this type of public inquiry, which is obviously of a quite pacifist kind. We are not going to go out with guns; we are merely seeking the right to find out what we can do to help the Timorese people. We will not be putting the Government in an awkward situation, although God knows that it has gone close enough to that itself on two or three occasions. We are merely saying that these people have a right to live in peace and freedom. In the meantime, until they can re-establish themselves as an independent country, they have a right to all those things which they need to keep themselves just alive. The establishment of a select committee will do that job most effectively. There is always a danger when a matter such as this goes to a standing committee that it will not be brought on for early investigation and it could be many months before the matter is discussed. I commend to the Senate the motion moved by the Opposition.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– In considering the proposed reference of the matter of East Timor to a senate select committee, or to the Senate Standing Committe on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I think we have to ask ourselves what such a reference would achieve. In particular, we have to ask whether it would achieve what I assume we all hope is the ultimate aim of whatever we say or do about East Timor, that is, to bring an end to the suffering of the people of East Timor. To decide that, it is necessary to look at the record to assess what more should or could be done in these circumstances to achieve this aim. I might say in passing that I do not accept the view that this subject is inappropriate for reference to either a select committee or a Senate standing committee. I believe that the Senate is competent to decide whether such a matter should be referred, and the question involved is whether, in agreeing to such a reference and in pursuing it, we would best achieve the ultimate purpose which I believe we all seek.

I should like to make a particular reference to Mr Dunn and his activities in regard to East Timor, as well as to his report entitled ‘Talks with Timorese Refugees in Portugal’. 1 think the title of the report is of particular significance, because it is precisely a report on talks with Timorese refugees. However that report may have been used and however it may have been portrayed in some cases, it is nothing more than a report of his discussions. As I understand it, Mr Dunn has never claimed that it is anything more than that. I want to make it quite clear that I for one do not question Jim Dunn’s sincerity and I do not question his concern for the people of East Timor, a concern which I share. I certainly do not question the ideals which have motivated him in his pursuit of the rights and interests of the people of East Timor, / believe that his report is a valuable one. It is a report of discussions and, as I pointed out, he claims nothing more for it. But it does raise issues which ought to bc of great concern to this Parliament and the people of Australia. In particular, I believe that his report serves to emphasise the difficulties involved in resolving the issues on the question of East Timor with respect to both our relations with Indonesia and the suffering of the people of East Timor.

I wish to make one related point. I think it is regrettable that in the course of the debate which has ensued, not necessarily on this occasion but earlier, both in this chamber and in the other place, there have been quite unwarranted criticisms of officers of the Australian Public Service, particularly of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I say only that I think it is unseemly for members of Parliament to pursue those sorts of attacks on public servants, who are there to provide advice to governments, and it is up to governments to take responsibility for their actions and their decisions. Equally, it is for parliamentarians who are members of those governments to share that responsibility. It seems to me inappropriate that at any time members of Parliament, either of the present Government or the former Government, should seek to place any blame on public servants who, as far as I am concerned, have done their best to advise governments on what they see as the best course for Australia.

I think it is worth looking back to the fact that the issue of East Timor was first raised in the Australian Parliament by the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) when he was shadow Foreign Minister in an urgency motion in February 1975. In 1974 Mr Peacock and I had met with Ramos-Horta of Fretilin when he was in Australia. At that time he warned of possible civil war and invasion by Indonesia. We were aware of those problems; Mr Peacock was aware of those problems, and went to the extent of raising the matter as a motion of urgency in the Parliament, expressing concern over the developing situation in East Timor and the need for action. Even before that time he had issued a public statement in September 1974, as I recall it, expressing concern on the part of the then Opposition at the situation which was developing in East Timor. I make the point, without any view to criticism of the previous Government but simply to indicate the lack of urgency with which the matter was considered, that that urgency motion was answered by the most junior Minister in the Labor Government. His response was that it was a pity that the matter had been raised because it would create differences between Indonesia and Australia.

The present Government has consistently called for a proper act of self-determination for the people of East Timor under United Nations auspices. It has called for the withdrawal of Indonesian forces in East Timor and it voted for that in the United Nations. It has said consistently that the International Red Cross should be permitted to operate in East Timor, and it voted for the United Nations resolution in December 1975 which embodied those principles and called particularly for the withdrawal of Indonesian forces. It was through the United Nations that we worked in 1975 to try to prevent an Indonesian invasion, which by then was clearly imminent. On 12 December the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution urging the withdrawal of Indonesian forces and self-determination for the people of East Timor as I have already mentioned. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of that important resolution of the General Assembly.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The document read as follows- 3485 (XXX). Question of Timor

The General Assembly

Recognizing the inalienable right of all peoples to selfdetermination and independence in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in its resolution 1 5 1 4 ( X V ) of 14 December 1960,

Having examined the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the question of Timor,

Having heard the statements of the representatives of Portugal, as the administering Power, concerning developments in Portuguese Timor and the implementation with regard to that Territory of the relevant provisions of the Charter and the Declaration, as well as those of General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960,

Bearing in mind the responsibility of the administering Power to undertake all efforts to create conditions enabling the people of Portuguese Timor to exercise freely their right to self-determination, freedom and independence and to determine their future political status in accordance with the principles of the Charter and the Declaration, in an atmosphere of peace and order,

Mindful that all States should, in conformity with Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or national independence of any State, or from taking any action inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the Chaner,

Deeply concerned at the critical situation resulting from the military intervention of the armed forces of Indonesia in Portuguese Timor,

  1. Calls upon all States to respect the inalienable right of the people of Portuguese Timor to self-determination, freedom and independence and to determine their future political status in accordance with the principles of the Chaner of the United Nations and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples;
  2. Calls upon the administering Power to continue to make every effort to find a solution by peaceful means through talks between the Government of Portugal and the political parties representing the people of Portuguese Timor:
  3. Appeals to all the parties in Portuguese Timor to respond positively to efforts to find a peaceful solution through talks between them and the Government of Portugal in the hope that such talks will bring an end to the strife in that Territory and lead towards the orderly exercise of the right of self-determination by the people of Portuguese Timor:
  4. Strongly deplores the military intervention of the armed forces of Indonesia in Portuguese Timor;
  5. Calls upon the Government ofIndonesia to desist from further violation of the territorial integrity of Portuguese Timor and to withdraw without delay its armed forces from the Territory in order to enable the people of the Territory freely to exercise their right to self-determination and independence;
  6. Draws the attention of the Security Council, in conformity with Article 11, paragraph 3, of the Charter, to the critical situation in the Territory of Portuguese Timor and recommends that it take urgent action to protect the territorial integrity of Portuguese Timor and the inalienable right of its people to self-determination:
  7. Calls upon all States to respect the unity and territorial integrity of Portuguese Timor;
  8. Requests the Government of Portugal to continue its co-operation with the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and requests the Committee to send a fact-finding mission to the Territory as soon as possible, in consultation with the political parties in Portuguese Timor and the Government of Portugal. 2439th plenary meeting 12 December 1975
Senator KNIGHT:

-The Australian Government pursued efforts within the United Nations and initiated a move for a United Nations observer to go into East Timor. On 23 December the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution unanimously requesting the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations to appoint a special representative for East Timor. I ask leave to incorporate in Hansard that Security Council resolution.

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

The document read as follows-

Resolution 384 (1975) of 22 December 1975

The Security Council,

Having noted the contents of the letter of the Permanent Representative ofPortugal (S/ 11899),

Having heard the statement of the representatives of Portugal and Indonesia,

Having heard representatives of the people of East Timor,

Recognizing the inalienable right of the people of East Timor to self-determination and independence in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, contained in General Assembly resolution l514(XV)of14December 1960.

Noting that General Assembly resolution 3485 (XXX) of 12 December 1975, inter alia, requested the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to send a fact-finding mission to East Timor,

Gravely concerned at the deterioration of the situation in East Timor,

Gravely concerned also at the loss of life and conscious of the urgent need to avoid further bloodshed in East Timor.

Deploring the intervention of the armed forces of Indonesia in East Timor,

Regretting that the Government of Portugal did not discharge fully its responsibilities as administering Power in the Territory under Chapter XI of the Charter,

Calls upon all States to respect the territorial integrity of East Timor as well as the inalienable right of its people to self-determination in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514(XV);

Calls upon the Government of Indonesia to withdraw without delay all its forces from the Territory:

Calls upon the Government of Portugal as administering Power to co-operate fully with the United Nations so as to enable the people of East Timor to exercise freely their right to self-determination:

Urges all States and other parties concerned to cooperate fully with the efforts of the United Nations to achieve a peaceful solution to the existing situation and to facilitate the decolonization of the Territory;

Requests the Secretary-General to send urgently a special representative to East Timor for the purpose of making an on-the-spot assessment of the existing situation and of establishing contact with all the parties in the Territory and all States concerned in order to ensure the implementation of the present resolution;

Further requests the Secretary-General to follow the implementation of the present resolution and, taking into account the report of his special representative, to submit recommendations to the Security Council as soon as possible;

Decides to remain seized of the situation.

Adopted unanimously at the 1869th meeting.

Senator KNIGHT:

– The Government strongly supported the subsequent Winspeare mission, as it has come to be known, to East Timor and provided support for it. What I think is equally significant or perhaps more significant is that the Australian Government then urged in the United Nations a second visit by Winspeare or by a United Nations representative. That has not occurred and I must say that I think that illustrates in one instance- and there are others- that the United Nations has not done what it should in the case of East Timor.

It is also worth making the point that the Australian Government has not accorded recognition of any form, either de facto or de jure, to Indonesian control of East Timor. We certainly have not accepted what has been called an act of self-determination. Both the previous Ford Administration in the United States and the present Carter Administration have accorded de facto recognition to Indonesian incorporation of East Timor. According to the reports from the Australian Broadcasting Commission program AM on 25 March, Mr Ray Martin said:

According to Mr Oakley. -

Who is a Deputy Under-Secretary of State-

The Carter Administration is simply facing up to the reality of the East Timor problem. No formal recognition of East Timor’s integration, but rather an acknowledgment of what Mr Oakley called, ‘the factual situation in the territory’, that U.S. policy goals should not be endangered by this Timor dispute . . . American policy is based on friendly relations with Jakarta and Indonesia is important because of vital natural resources and its strategic position in Asia.

I think it is worth noting that the Carter Administration in the United States has accorded what seems to me to be very clearly de facto recognition of Indonesian incorporation of East Timor- a position with which the Australian Government does not agree.

The question of providing aid to people in East Timor has been raised on many occasions. There has been some criticism that that aid has not been provided through the International Committee of the Red Cross. This simply was not permitted by Indonesia. It became clear that the only way to provide aid and to assist in alleviating the suffering of the people of East Timor was to do so through the Indonesian Red Cross and to hope- I emphasise ‘hope ‘-that it would get to the people who needed it. This was done only because Indonesia has failed to admit the International Committee of the Red Cross back into East Timor. I believe the Indonesian Government stands indicted for that. Australian aid through the International Committee of the Red Cross initially and subsequently through the Indonesian Red Cross now amounts to several hundreds of thousands of dollars. The basic aim throughout, whether aid has gone through the International Committee of the Red Cross or through the Indonesian Red Cross, has been to get aid to the people in East Timor.

It is important that the Government has been negotiating with Indonesia for the reunification of families from East Timor. To this stage a good deal of progress has been made. According to some reports there has been agreement in principle that this reunification of families will go ahead and the Indonesian Government has indicated its agreement. I think we have to note that any further strain in relations or perhaps a break in relations with Indonesia could end those negotiations and end hope of reunification of those families. They certainly would not be reunited for a long time if that were to happen. I also would like to refer to the question of refugees. Mr Dunn’s report states that of approximately 1500 Timorese refugees who are now in Portugal, as many as 95 per cent wish to come to Australia and about one-third are said by Mr Dunn to have relatives who came to Australia as refugees in 1975. There has been some controversy over these figures. I do not think the accuracy of the figures is relevant. I do not think it is relevant to the basic issue and that is, that so far as possible we have to do everything we can to ensure that those people who are able can come to Australia. These people have got to be treated as refugees. Most of them, as I understand it, are Portuguese citizens and they are in Portugal. It may be ironic that one considers a citizen in that country to be a refugee. Obviously, this is a unique situation. I think we have to treat these people as refugees.

The recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence with respect to refugees ought to be implemented urgently. There should be an Australian Refugee Policy Council. There should be an interdepartmental committee that can co-ordinate action and there should be a clearly stated policy on refugees. These people in Portugal ought to be treated as refugees and we ought to treat the matter with urgency and with compassion.

Australia’s capacity to provide aid to East Timor, to assist refugees from East Timor and to reunite families from East Timor unfortunately are not matters entirely under our control. If they were, the solution would be obvious, but they are not.

I agree that there are reasons for our trying to reconcile the evidence which is now available from different sources. Undoubtedly a great many questions remain unanswered. I do not believe that an inquiry by a committee of this Senate, whether it be a select committee or a standing committee, would obtain the answers. It would certainly express opinions on the many contradictions which already exist and probably more contradictions would arise. But it mightand I fear it probably would- adversely affect some of the aspirations implied or expressed in the proposed terms of reference for a select committee and in the amendment.

I was one of a group of senators which recently asked the United States President to take action on this particular matter. Because of Mr Carter’s interest in human rights- a strongly expressed interest- we urged him to take up this matter with Indonesia just as the Australian Government has done on numerous occasions. We asked that President Carter urge the Indonesians to comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to resume its activities in East Timor. In sending that petition it was my hope that the United States Administration might take some action on this matter along the lines that the Australian Government has taken and, thereby, add weight to those representations. It was my hope that its greater strength as an international ‘super power’ might result in some action from the Indonesians.

There is evidence now before an American Congressional Committee which appears to confirm that Australian journalists were killed either by pro-Indonesian or Indonesian forces in East Timor. According to the reports which I have seen, this information was given by an Indonesian sponsored witness. I believe that through most of these accounts relating to journalists from Australia- three of whom were Australian citizens- an element of consistency exists, including the report of Mr Dunn. On the basis of evidence of the Indonesian representative in the United States I think we must seek clarification from the Indonesian Government. But I do not believe that a select committee or the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence will obtain that information. Indeed, it may make it more difficult to obtain. The Australian Government must seek more detailed information once again from the Indonesian Government on this matter of very obvious direct concern to Australia and Australian citizens.

The Indonesian Journalists Association, following action by the Australian Journalists Association, issued a statement on this matter. I wish to make no comment on it but simply read it into the record so that it is there for consideration and for the information of others who are interested. I emphasise that I make no comment on its accuracy or otherwise. It reads:

The Indonesian Journalists’ Association (PWI) suggests that research be conducted into the diary of the late Mr Greg Shackleton, one of the five ill-fated Australian journalists who died in East Timor.

The diary is now in the hands of his family in Australia.

The diary, which contains authentic reports on the real situation, states the following testimonies:

Threats of war, mortar bombardment, and fear overwhelmed them. On the other hand, the diary showed their carelessness. The live journalists stayed there despite the Fretilin troops taking position for a war.

b ) The diary also clearly indicates their taking side with them as suggested in the following notes: 1 1.30 left Balibo, 1 2.35 arrived Maliana ‘ at Maliana gave message to commandant to send 2 cars back to defend Balibo’.

In other section, the diary indicates:

Our troops and . . . ‘, referring to Fretilin troops.

All this indicates their unawareness of the real situation and their consciousness to involve themselves and take side with a certain group of the conflicting parties in East Timor.

It was evident that they were aware of the risks and danger. This was clearly indicated in the diary as stated in the following transcription:

Several kilometres back we had signed a letter absolving Fretilin of any responsibility for our safety and wellbeing. That was additional to the same kind of letter we signed for the Portuguese Government to get into Dili’.

As I said at the outset, I believe that everybody who has been involved in this debate now and in the past is anxious to assist the people of East Timor. I think all of us would expect the Indonesian Government to facilitate this action. I can say only that if the Indonesian Government remains intransigent it can hardly expect any Australian government to continue taking a stand based only on the importance of close relations between the 2 countries particularly if irresponsible threats are made against the Australian Embassy, and Australians in Indonesia.

I think some other factors are worth considering. It is my understanding that Indonesia has taken action against many of its troops guilty of atrocities or looting in East Timor. It is also my understanding that Indonesia is now withdrawing from East Timor at least a large part of its forces. The Indonesian Government, as I understand it, also has allocated a good deal of aid for East Timor. I recognise that none of this excuses what has happened but I think they are factors that ought to be taken into account.

We are left with the question of what further action we should take. I believe there are good reasons for the inquiries which are proposed either by a select committee or by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. On balance, looking at the possible negative effects, I cannot support either proposal. There is no question that it is essential that the International Committee of the Red Cross be allowed back into East Timor. We ought to be working to finalise plans for assistance to refugees and the re-uniting of families from East Timor. I believe that Australia should now establish a comprehensive aid program, including voluntary agencies, to assist in East Timor. I believe that Indonesia should be ready to facilitate the provision of this sort of aid from Australia to the people of East Timor.

The sort of inquiries that are proposed, I believe, might only hinder the achievement of these aims. If there is to be an inquiry surely the United Nations should conduct it. It is an international problem and the United Nations, I believe, should accept its responsibilities. It involves Portugual, Indonesia, Timor, Australia and the United States in different ways. The United Nations has been involved to an extent with the

Winspeare mission which this Government supported. But if the issue is to be settled in any realistic way I believe it should be through the United Nations. Congressman Fraser of the Congressional Committee in the United States which is examining some aspects of this matter said recently:

I think this hearing may have the value of focussing the attention of the Department of State on the problem. This may lead this new administration, with I think a more sensitive concern about Human Rights, to look into the matter more carefully. This is what I hope might happen. If they do indeed believe there is a continuing problem of some magnitude, rather than get into a confrontation with the Indonesian Government, perhaps in concert with other nations which are important to Indonesia, there might be a sitting down and talking out of this matter with the Indonesian Government and try to come to some sensible resolution of the problem.

The sort of thing expressed by Congressman Fraser is what the United Nations could do and indeed should do. I believe this is the area from which any initiative for an inquiry at this stage should come. Having said that, it should be clear to the Indonesians that the onus is on them to show some understanding, some compassion and some greater international responsibility.

I cannot support the proposal for a select committee or a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence at this stage because I do not believe either would achieve certain things which I think are desirable- a proper act of self-determination, Australian aid to East Timor, assistance to refugees and the re-uniting of families. These inquiries will not elicit, I believe, conclusive evidence and indeed they might hinder us in what is, as I have said already, the main aim of everybody involved in this debate, and that is to alleviate the suffering of the people of East Timor. I believe action would best be taken through the United Nations or in continuing bilateral discussions and negotiations. It is therefore with some reservations and some regret that 1 oppose the motion before the Senate and the amendment which has been moved to it.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-We are debating the motion moved by Senator Gietzelt which seeks to establish a Senate select committee to investigate the problems associated with the conflicts in East Timor and the subsequent difficulties that have arisen with the provision of aid to East Timor and the care of refugees from that area. In addition to this, of course, the fate of the 6 Australian journalists who were killed in East Timor is included as a matter of obvious importance to this country. I am disappointed that the Government is taking the attitude that it is. It is completely opposed to any inquiry being conducted by this Senate. I expected from the Government an amendment of the type moved by Senator Missen and seconded by Senator Bonner which questions the necessity for a select committee. 1 would even have expected a motion which perhaps altered the terms of reference of the proposed select committee.

I am disappointed, as I said, that we are faced with a blanket refusal of the Government to consider the establishment of such a committee it seems because we may offend the sensitivities of the members of the Indonesian Government. It also concerns me that from debate in this House and from discussions outside that foreign affairs debates in this country and in this Parliament seem likely to revert to the sort of blind, prejudicial type of debate we had in the 30 years leading up to 1972- the sort of debate and attitudes that led to our involvement in Vietnam and the unnecessary death and destruction that came out of that and the ridiculous situation which applied up until 1972 when this country did not even recognise the existence of China and the government of that country. I am disappointed that, if our discussions on foreign affairs are to revert to the sort of situation where debate is based on suspicion and blind prejudice against anyone who is considered to be communist or procommunist, our international relations will go backwards as I believe they did in those 30 years.

It seems to me that the Government’s arguments in this debate against any inquiry of this type can be listed under 4 headings. The first argument which was put rather strongly by Senator Withers a week ago was that East Timor is not a special case, that there have been other examples in the world of internal and external aggression with all its evil results- I believe he mentioned Angola, Chile and all sorts of other places- and that, therefore, we should not be particularly concerned about East Timor. The second argument which seemed to be the basis of Senator Scott’s speech was that our relations with our near neighbours are important and that such an inquiry may, in fact, upset the basis of such relations. The third argument seemed to be that such an inquiry may inhibit the availability of aid to East Timor or the ability of refugees to leave East Timor. Senator Knight, in his thoughtful speech tonight, made some note of this. The fourth argument seems to come from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock). It is that the Senate does not have the capacity to conduct such an inquiry successfully.

I do not concede that such objections are valid. I believe that it is worthwhile looking at such objections one by one. The most specious argument is the first, that East Timor is not a special case to us. As many people have pointed out, the country is one of our nearest neighbours. Six Australian journalists were murdered during the early part of the conflict. We had a special relationship with the East Timorese people during the Second World War. In fact, members of the Parliament served in that area and were protected and helped by the East Timorese in a very gallant way. There are Timorese refugees in Australia. They would like to have their relatives here with them. We are charged with the responsibility of caring for some of these refugees. The whole situation is occurring on our doorstep. We have as much a special interest in East Timor and the areas around it as we have in New Zealand or any other country in the region. The argument becomes more demonstrably false when we consider the second argument which was the basis of Senator Scott’s speech. He said that Indonesia is a near neighbour. We have a special interest in keeping good relations with Indonesia and, therefore, we should refrain from setting up a committee such as this as it might disturb those relations.

I accept that it is extremely desirable that we have good relations with all our near neighbours. But those relations should not cause this country to ignore the implications of actions by any of its near neighbours. Nor do I believe that we should be intimidated by threats of demonstrations against our Embassy in Indonesia if we do not desist from criticising or questioning the actions of the Indonesians and considering their implications on this country. We in the Parliament should not be affected by members of Parliament talking privately with the Indonesians and speaking to them in terms contrary to their own Government’s policies. We should not be affected by State Premiers cabling or writing to Indonesian authorities encouraging them to indulge in the sort of thing that has happened in East Timor. Good relations involve straight talking between neighbours and depend on mutual respect between neighbouring countries. I can see nothing in the inquiry suggested by Senator Gietzelt which would militate against good relations between countries if those good relations have a sound basis.

In the third argument against such an inquiry which has been used in this debate it is said that such an inquiry may inhibit aid to East Timor and our ability to evacuate refugees from East Timor. One of the aims of the proposed committee is to look into the problem of the refugees, the difficulties which are arising in getting aid to

East Timor and the difficulties we have in knowing whether the hundreds of thousands of dollars in aid that we are spending to help the East Timorese people are, in fact, reaching those people. Senator Knight made a point of this issue. He expressed a hope that the Indonesians would allow the Internationa] Red Cross and other organisations to enter East Timor to assist in the rebuilding of the country and the evacuation of refugees. He gave no evidence- I can see no evidence and I do not believe that anyone else can see any evidence- that the Indonesians will have a change of heart and suddenly allow us to enter the country somehow and assist the people there. I see no basis to this argument unless the Government has been threatened by the Indonesians that if it goes ahead with its criticism and with inquiries such as the one proposed they will not let anybody into the country and they will keep everyone out. Neither Senator Withers nor Mr Peacock has suggested to the Parliament that that has happened.

To suggest that the Senate does not have the capacity to conduct such an inquiry is nonsense. I am glad that Senator Knight suggested that it may be nonsense. We have had inquiries into our affairs with other countries before. In fact, we had one involving Indonesia. There are compelling reasons why we should have such an inquiry. Some of them have been brought out even by the opponents of the establishment of the proposed committee. The first argument is the one I used earlier, that the East Timor affair has occurred on our doorstep. It has concerned a lot of people in this country. There have been widely conflicting reports. Widely conflicting accusations and many assertions have been made- some may be substantial; some may not- from this country, from Portugal and from Indonesia itself. They are made daily. It is important that some attempt be made to clear the air on this issue so that we all know what is going on and what we may be able to do about the situation.

Serious accusations have been made in this debate, by Senator Scott for one, about the alleged complicity of the Government of which I was a supporter and, in particular, its leader, Mr Whitlam. They have been made without supportive evidence. It is important that that sort of accusation which is thrown around in and out of this Parliament be investigated and considered by this Parliament. Serious assertions have been made about the present Government’s attitude in this affair and the attitude of the present Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Indonesian-East Timorese situation. They are made in the Press; they are made in the Parliament. I have no idea of the validity of the evidence that has been produced but surely it is up to the Parliament to consider that evidence. Serious accusations have been made against public servants, as Senator Knight said. I do not share his complete abhorrence of the idea that public servants should be responsible for some of their actions. But whether Senator Knight or I like it, these accusations have been made. They have been documented within and outside this Parliament. It is surely up to the Parliament and the Senate to investigate the validity of those accusations and to see what we should do about them.

Serious claims have been made about the death or murder of the six Australian newsmen. These accusations are of vital concern to all Australians. They are of particular concern to the families of those journalists and their colleagues in this country. I believe this Senate and this Parliament should look into this situation and see whether we can get to the truth and find out what happened.

At the moment we have no idea of what is happening in East Timor and no accurate idea of what has happened to the people of East Timor since the takeover by Indonesia. Many claims are made about what is happening there, about atrocities and murders, about looting and killing. They are frequently conflicting. People in this country are very concerned about those reports because of our very special relationship with East Timor. They are not only left wing activists, as has been suggested by some people. It has been demonstrated in this Parliament that people with all sorts of political philosophies are concerned about the happenings in East Timor and Australia ‘s part in what has happened there over the last 1 8 months. Claims have been made, even by Senator Withers and others, that perhaps 8000 to 10 000 people have been killed. I noticed in the Press this morning that Mr Adam Malik was reported as having said that 50 000 people, perhaps up to 80 000 people, had been killed in East Timor.

Australia has sent, and is sending, aid worth some hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Indonesian Red Cross for East Timor. There are grave doubts, as Senator Knight suggested, as to whether this aid is reaching the people it is supposed to reach. The Australian Government, using the law of this country, is preventing direct communication between people in East Timor and their representatives and colleagues in this country. We must ask ourselves whether this is just and humane. Part of the suggested inquiry would be an investigation of this matter.

It is reasonable that this Parliament, this Senate, should look into those problems. All these things can be looked into by the suggested committee. Not all of them may be capable of solution but at least we can attempt to look at them and attempt to come to conclusions and attempt to see what we should do in future situations like this. I suggest that if our relationships with Indonesia would be affected by such a committee then they are not on a very good basis at the moment. Our so-called good relationships with that country may be merely a facade if the setting up of a committee of this Senate to investigate what is going on in East Timor is going to tear them apart.

The tragedy of East Timor is an example of the sort of tragedy which is all too common in our time. It is the sort of tragedy which occurs when big countries interfere in the affairs of small countries in order to try to influence the future of small countries. I would point out the obvious; that this phenomenon of interference of big countries in the affairs of small countries is not the prerogative of any political system. The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are obvious examples of this sort of thing occurring. But this tragedy has happened on our doorstep. There are suggestions by serious people, by concerned people in this country, not all of them in one political group, that we, as a country and as a government, could have done something to prevent this tragedy. There is a suggestion by many concerned people that we, as a country, could bc doing more to assist the victims of this tragedy.

Surely it is worth looking into these things. Those who take the simplistic view that anyone who is violently anti-communist is good and must be supported and that we should turn a blind eye to any immoral or illegal act by any such country, or to any unjust behaviour by any such country, will oppose the setting up of this committee. Such people would support men like Duvalier of Haiti or Battista of Cuba in all their abuses against humanity. If the proposed committee can clear the air a little on East Timor, if it can turn up some small skerrick of the truth, then I believe it would be worth while. If it could add to the chances of this country taking a more positive line in future situations like this, no matter which political party is in government here, I believe it would be more than worth while. If the proposed committee stirred the consciences of the people in this country and assisted the people in East Timor even in a small way it would have achieved more than anyone else has achieved since the East Timor problem arose.

As I said before, it would be a great pity if debate on foreign affairs in this country goes back to the simplistic days we had before. It would mean that this country would go back to being involved in or a party to the sort of excesses we had in Vietnam. I believe very strongly that we, with other small countries, should show active interest and take an active part in the rights of small countries and in the rights of small nationalities and minorities. The Parliament cannot avoid and should not avoid looking closely al our international relationships, lt should not avoid looking closely at the conduct of those who conduct those international relationships, be they members of this Parliament or be they be public servants. These people are charged with carrying out those relationships and we, parliamentarians, are charged by the people of this country with keeping a watching brief over the conduct of our international relationships.

I believe that to refuse this inquiry or an inquiry like this is to refuse to be involved in the affairs of our region whenever it becomes uncomfortable for us to be involved in our region. Such an attitude is one of appeasement. Such an attitude is completely untenable to me. I support the motion moved by Senator Gietzelt and in the event that it is not passed I would support, as second best, the amendment moved by Senator Missen.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I appreciated the very thoughtful speech made to us tonight by Senator John Knight. Everyone would agree that we must appreciate the case he presented to us. I am not here tonight to join in with either Opposition members or Government supporters in throwing arguments across the floor about the Timor situation. I am sad and bitter, and perhaps to a degree I am cynical, to find that tonight we are debating the Timor situation. To my mind the gate was opened some time ago and the horse has bolted. Why did this Parliament and Australia not express their feelings, as they are now being expressed throughout this country and in this Parliament, some 2 years ago when the horse was still in the yard? Why did they not express their feelings then instead of now when the horse has bolted?

Timor is of particular significance to me. It has a special significance for many reasons. I believe, as I have said in many places, that Australia has owed a debt to Timor for very many years- ever since the Second World War. I will go into that a little later. Of course East Timor is our nearest neighbour. As Senator Bonner said tonight, if one flew in a jet aircraft from the mainland of

Australia in the vicinity of Darwin, one would be in Timor in a mutter of minutes.

Some little while before the civil war in Timor I spent some time there. I went off the beaten track of the tourists. I spent a considerable amount of time at Baucau. Dili. Tutuala and Viqueque. 1 was off the beaten track at very many villages along the coast and in the highlands of Timor. I spent very many happy days wilh these pi-i lilli- traveling with ihi-m. eating wilh them and joining m mi-ir I. in I !><.-v “e re a very friendly people. I hey were ;i very poor people. 1 think their poorness is ;i charge against Australia. They arc our nearest neighbours and they have lived in such a poor state, but over the years we have done nothing for them. 1 wandered around East Timor with them. I mct many people. 1 met many old men who came out to me in the villages. Because I was wearing bush clothes 1 suppose they recognised them as similar to the Australian Army uniform. They came out with beams on their faces. They are a very sincere people. In the last war these people did so many things to take the side of the Australian troops who were cut oil” in Timor. These people fed the Australians, and they looked alter them under the threat of death. As we all know, in those days if the Japanese found anyone assisting the Australian troops who were pin-pricking them, it was death to those Timorese.

While with them I moved in the various areas where the Australians had been in action. I went through the caves which the Japanese had dug. I was in the highlands where an Australian aircraft had landed and where the Timorese people had rescued the Australians from under the noses of the Japanese. The Japanese later, on this very large plain, had dug mounds every 40 or 50 yards and planted a tree in order to prevent further aircraft coming in. I mct many of these people. I met a woman who was a young girl when the Australians were there. She was the wife of the administrator in Maubisse. She. with many of the Timorese had walked across the mountains. I think it took some 2 days and 2 nights. Many of these people went out with the Australian troops when the destroyer finally came in and took them off. So many of these Timorese people caine with the Australian troops. Those who had assisted Australians and who could not bc left behind came to Australia. I believe that they lived in a small town in New South Wales until the end of the war. During this period some of the Timorese men who had assisted the Australians in Timor trained wilh the Australian troops. In Darwin a few months ago I was able to sec some papers which these old mcn had. They had trained with the Australian troops with the view of parachuting back into their country to assist in the fight against the Japanese.

As I said, in this brief period I had in Timor I met many Timorese and I made many friends. It was always my intention to go back. In fact, I think I would have stayed there much longer if I had not, of necessity, had to come back to Australia. Since the civil war and the invasion by Indonesia into Timor, I have met many of the refugees in Australia. Most of them are in Darwin. Some have come down and stayed with me in my home in Alice Springs. I have met these Timorese often. In fact, it was about three or four months ago that they said they wished to see me. It was arranged that on a Sunday I should meet them. But a hall in Darwin was not conveniently available and so it was decided that I should meet them in 4 different houses. I think I started meeting at 4 o’clock in the afternoon and I finished at midnight. I met many of these people. They gathered in 4 houses in the area of Darwin. I met the old people who had come out as refugees; I met the young people and the middle aged people. The thing that struck me was that they were sad and fearful for the people they had left behind in Timor. But they, did not come to Australia and ask for handouts. They did not go to the Department of Social Security. Every Timorese that I met had a job in Darwin. Engineers were gardening. People with experience in this and that were picking up jobs here and there. Everyone had a job except for a mere handful of people who were in ill health. It was mainly the old people who could not work. In all the contact that I had with them, what made an impression on me was the urgency within them. The urgency was: What has happened to our people in Timor? Can we bring out our family? Many of the families are split up. Some people arrived without a husband or a wife or perhaps without their children. Many families have been smashed and they wish to be reunited.

When I meet these people I am considerably humbled. Also, as I have said before, I am impressed with the desire they have to be reunited. They are very much family people. It is this fact which has been impressed on me by these people which forms the action which I am taking in this debate. I have met Mr Dunn. I recognise him as a very genuine and sincere person, just as Neville Bonner, Senator Missen and other people who have had contact with the Timorese are sincere. I appreciate what they have said and I appreciate their feelings. But it is with considerable bitterness that I feel that Australia has let the Timorese down. I cast my mind back to after the war when Australia did nothing for the Timorese. They saved our troops and did all these things. We sent back to Timor after the war those who had come out here, and we did nothing for them. They are very poor people. I have seen them walk for two or three days to market. Then, in the 1 960s, we withdrew our Australian Consul to Timor. The Timorese said: ‘Australians are our friends. They will do everything for us. But why did they take away the Consul?’ I said: ‘I do not know’. While I was there it was quite obvious that the Portuguese were doing nothing for the Timorese. The Portuguese had been there for some 400 to 500 years and had formed a type of civilisation but the Timorese had been given nothing. It was apparent that while the Portuguese were holding the Timorese down- the Timorese were not allowed to have political meetings or anything like thatthere was a sense of unrest.

What happened was that the Portuguese with little warning moved out of Timor, abrogated their responsibilities and allowed this ferment to develop in Timor with the result that there was civil war. It was then that the United Nations, Australia and others who had some responsibilities to Timor should have taken action because if there had been a peace force in Timor then, whether in the form of an Australian police force without arms or a United Nations force, there would not have been any bloodshed. I would say that if Portugal had only come to an agreement with Australia and Indonesia and that if there had been a force of Australians in Timor there would not have been any bloodshed. The Timorese would have looked to Australia and would have worked out their future. As I said last night, why cry over spilt milk? But, unfortunately, in a situation like this we have to do so.

It is my intention tonight not to support either the amendment or the original motion. I do so for 2 particular reasons. After all this contact with the Timorese people and having seen the fear within them and in view of their wish to be reunited with their people, if I voted for either the amendment or the original motion in the Senate and either were carried and as a result possibly the Indonesians broke off negotiations with Australia on the reuniting of these people I would feel responsible. It is for that reason and that reason alone that I cannot support either the amendment or the original motion. I have sympathy for them and it is within me to support them if for no other reason than to have the satisfaction of expressing my indignation at what has happened, but I cannot do that. I cannot support the amendment or the original motion because I believe that it may prejudice the future reunion of the Timorese people.

When I consider what might be achieved by a select committee- perhaps a lot could be achieved; perhaps not- I think it would be very difficult to ascertain the facts of the case because I doubt whether the facts are known in Australia. I doubt whether the air can be cleared. It is for the reasons that I have given that I make this decision. I believe that Indonesia has done a very wrong thing. Timorese people have told me of the excesses that have happened in Dili and other places. In fact I have seen 2 letters that were smuggled out of Dili while the Indonesian troops were posted in Singapore and they both indicate that the oppressors, the Indonesians, had treated them very badly. I will not go on at length. One could speak for hours on this subject. I do not support the motion though I have an inclination to do so. However, I feel that if I did I could jeopardise the reunion of the East Timorese people.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 755

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leave- agreed to:

That the motion relating to the next meeting of the Senate be varied and that the Senate at its rising adjourn until Wednesday 20 April 1 977 at half past two p.m. or such other hour and day to be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees and that the hour and day of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 755

AUSTRALIAN DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AGENCY (REPEAL) BILL 1977

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Bill (on motion by Senator Withers) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Bill is to repeal the legislation governing the Australian Development Assistance Agency. Honourable senators will recall that the Government decided in February 1976 to abolish the Australian Development Assistance Agency and to transfer its functions to a bureau within the Department of Foreign Affairs. This was in line with the Government’s overall approach to the structure of the Commonwealth Public Service and the view that, to achieve greater efficiency and economy, the number of commissions and other statutory bodies should be minimised.

The Government was also conscious that while humanitarian considerations are of the utmost importance in aid it must also be seen as a contribution to peace and to stable international relations. Moreover, the giving and receiving of aid gives rise to a relationship between donor and recipient governments of a kind which otherwise would not exist. We are not seeking to achieve narrow political objectives through the provision of aid. We look to aid to assist developing countries along the path to self-sustaining growth and the forms of our assistance are very much governed by the needs of recipients as they define them.

I believe that it cannot be too frequently stated that Australia is in a position different from nearly all other Western donors. We are a rich economy most of whose neighbours are developing nations with low per capita incomes, high population growth rates, foreign exchange problems and huge debt burdens. Australia has always recognised its special responsibility to assist its neighbours. This has meant that the greater proportion of our aid, around 85 per cent, has gone directly as bilateral aid mainly to Papua New Guinea, the Association of South East Asian Nations, and the South Pacific countries. In addition we have significant programs elsewhere in Asia and in Africa.

Although these obligations of neighbourhood limit our ability to contribute to international organisations Australia is very much aware of their role and the need for us to support them. In particular, we see international organisations as a means for us to channel some assistance to countries where distance, lack of representation or administrative difficulties prevent us from a direct contribution. We recognise that our bilateral aid makes the greatest contribution to developing countries if it is concentrated on sectors which are critical to their development plans and in which we are well equipped to offer positive assistance. In many cases, this means an emphasis on the rural sector. We are also aware of the need to avoid delivering aid in piecemeal fashion; considerable progress has already been made with a number of large-scale development programs intended to bring about the balanced development of whole regions. This form of aid will continue to represent a challenge to the administrative skills of the new Bureau.

Pending the passage of the Bill a number of administrative measures for the incorporation of the Agency in the Department have already been taken. In the process of making these arrangements substantial staff reductions have been made with the objective of achieving the maximum economies consistent with the effective administration of the aid program. From 1 February this year the Agency has been, in fact, operating as the Australian Development Assistance Bureau within the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Bureau is responsible to the Secretary of the Department and under the control of a Director at Deputy Secretary level. The position of Director has been advertised and applications are currently being considered.

The Bureau is performing all the functions formerly carried out by the Agency. These include the administration of the provision by Australia of aid to developing countries and the formulation of policy for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on matters relating to aid. Experience over the last 12 months has already shown that the reintegration of the Agency into the Department has had a beneficial effect on the administration of our overseas aid program; a closer relationship between the Bureau and other areas of the Department has developed. Furthermore there is a deeper overall appreciation of the importance of development assistance in Australia’s foreign policy. Effective administration of our foreign policy, and indeed the development of the best possible policies, requires that officers concerned with aid should be given opportunities to make an appropriate input into thinking about our foreign relations as well as being fully conscious of the manner in which those relations bear upon their responsibilities. In other words, there must be close working relations between aid officers and their colleagues of the Department. The new arrangements will facilitate the development of such relationships.

In establishing a Bureau the Government is concerned to maintain the professional approach to aid administration and the opportunity for career specialisation which was being developed in the Agency. The Bureau will have a very substantial degree of autonomy in relation to financial management of the development assistance program. Honourable senators will know that section 3 1 of the present Act gave the Minister power to engage experts to work on the aid program. With the repeal of the Act experts will be engaged under the Public Service Act. In practice this will not involve any great change as the Agency generally recruited experts under terms and conditions similar to those operating under the Public Service Act. Arrangements are currently being made with the Public Service Board for the delegation of certain powers to the Bureau with respect to the engagement of experts. I am confident that the necessary delegations can be given to the Bureau to enable it to obtain and place experts overseas quickly and effectively.

The Government believes that the aspirations and interests of the Australian community have an important role in the determination of foreign policy including that relating to development assistance. Although the Development Assistance Advisory Board will be abolished with the repeal of the Act the Minister for Foreign Affairs is giving thought to its replacement by an informal advisory mechanism. Because of the importance attached to the relationship between the aid program and the wider community it is proposed to give this matter very careful consideration before taking any action. The Minister will of course make an announcement on the subject at the appropriate time.

Our commitment to aid must be seen in the light of present economic constraints and problems facing Australia in the short term. The Government remains firmly committed to the achievement of the internationally accepted target of 0.7 percent. Regrettably present economiccircumstances preclude our setting a date for its achievement. In the meantime, we are endeavouring to maintain our aid at the highest level consistent with economic and budgetary constraints.

The pledges to Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and the South Pacific announced last year are evidence of our commitment and demonstrate the acceptance of our responsibility to assist developing countries. The pledge of at least $930m in untied grant aid over 5 years to Papua New Guinea was welcomed by that country as were our commitments of $86m over 3 years to Indonesia and at least $60m to the island nations of the South Pacific over the same period. In order to improve the quality of our aid and to ensure its relevance to their needs, a series of program planning missions have been sent to the Pacific and to Asian countries.

Honourable senators will recall that last year legislation was passed giving effect to Australia ‘s contribution of $30. 73m to the first replenishment of the Asian Development Fund. Australia will be taking up an additional subscription of $3 1 8.6m to the capital of the Asian Development Bank. Only 10 per cent or $3 1.9m will be paid into the Bank but the remaining 90 per cent will be on call as backing for the borrowing operations of the Bank. Legislation to authorise this contribution will be introduced this session. As well, legislation will be introduced to authorise a substantial contribution by Australia to the fifth replenishment of the International Development Association.

The Government is also actively encouraging the involvement of the private sector in the aid program in order to make its wealth of expertise available to developing countries. Increasing use is being made of private bodies. The Bureau expects to delegate to them wider responsibility for the administration of aid projects.

My Government believes that Australia has a strong responsibility to assist the economic and social advancement of Third World countries particularly through our overseas aid program. We are determined to continue and extend that program. The reintegration of the Australian Development Assistance Agency as the Australian Development Assistance Bureau within the Department of Foreign Affairs will ensure increased economy in the administration of our aid and improve co-ordination of development assistance policy with foreign policy generally.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 757

ADJOURNMENT

Animal Health Laboratory, Geelong- Use of Sugar Cane Fibre- Parking Facilities at Parliament House- Unemployment Benefits- Health Services in the Australian Capital Territory

Motion (by Senator Withers) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– There are 2 matters that I wish to raise tonight in the adjournment debate and both relate to questions which I asked in the Senate on 15 and 16 March. On 15 March I asked Senator Webster a question in relation to the curtailment of the construction of the animal health laboratory at Geelong in Victoria. My question was as follows:

I refer to an announcement made on 2 April 1974 by the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, to the effect that the Government had allocated S57m to construct an animal health laboratory at Geelong in Victoria on land owned by the Government. Was construction of this laboratory commenced last year, as scheduled under the Whitlam Government? If construction has not commenced, can the Minister say what is being done in the interim to safeguard Australian animal health by way of testing and treatment of exotic diseases? Finally, when can it be expected that construction of the laboratory will commence if it has not already commenced?

What prompted me to ask that question was a statement in the primary industry policy of the Liberal and National Country Parties which was announced in November 1975. Under the heading ‘Animal and Plant Diseases’ the policy states:

The eradication of disease, diseases and insect pests and the difficulties of chemical residues is a national problem requiring co-ordinated control from Federal and State governments. This will receive a high priority through the Australian Agricultural Council. Quarantine: We support the establishment, at an early date, of a Maximum Security Laboratory and Quarantine Station for exotic animal diseases.

This is the laboratory which the Labor Government had announced it would construct at a cost of $56m had it remained in office. Senator Webster wrote to me on 23 March 1977 and I seek leave to have his letter incorporated in Hansard.

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

The letter read as follows-

Dear Senator McLaren:

You will recall your question without notice on March 1 Sth, seeking information about the proposal to construct an animal health laboratory at Geelong, Victoria.

I now have additional information from the Minister for Primary Industry, who has the responsibility for construction of the laboratory.

He advises me us follows:

Construction of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong was not commenced last year.

It has not yet commenced, as the project was deferred early in 1976 because of the need for the present Government to institute deliberate and careful restraints on all forms of expenditure. The position will be reviewed again this year.

Existing arrangements with reference laboratories overseas are being maintained to ensure that we have support if necessary to aid in diagnosis of any introduced exotic animal disease.

Yours sincerely. J.J. WEBSTER

Senator McLAREN:

– I thank the Senate. On 16 March I raised with Senator Webster a further question on the use of sugar cane fibre. I asked:

Can the Minister for Science indicate what, if any, research or development projects are being carried out under the responsibility of his Department which relate to the use of sugar cane fibres as a building material, energy source, animal stock feed or as a clothing textile source? If there is no current research being carried out in Australia in any of these fields, will the Minister undertake to study the feasibility of such projects? Will he inform the Senate if any such research is being undertaken in any other country?

Senator Webster wrote to me on 28 March 1977. His letter is a page and a half long. I seek leave to have that answer incorporated in Hansard.

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

The document read as follows-

MINISTER FOR SCIENCE

Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 28 March 1977

Dear Senator McLaren,

I refer to your Question Without Notice on 16 March about the use of sugarcane fibre. I am pleased to provide the following information prepared by CSIRO.

The CSIRO Division of Chemical Technology in collaboration with the Sugar Research Institute and the Queensland Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations is carrying out a preliminary feasibility study on the possibility of drying and briquetting bagasse fibre, possibly for export to Japan as a pulping raw material. Laboratory briquetting and pulping studies are in progress, and small-scale briquetting tests will be made with commercial equipment in the next five months. If successful, the initial commercial development of this process would probably be in the Mackay and Bundaberg regions using bagasse fibre surplus to that required to fire the furnaces that supply energy for raw sugar manufacture. If large-scale development were planned, an alternative fuel supply for the sugar mills would have to be provided.

The Division of Chemical Technology, in association with sugar industry authorities, has also begun a feasibility study of the recovery of sugar cane crop residues which are now burnt in the field. These include the dry leaf trash which is burnt before harvest, and the green tops which are discarded by the mechanical harvester and burnt after drying out in the field. Various possible uses for this material are under consideration. For example, the quantity would be more than adequate for a replacement solid fuel for the sugar mills. Other possibilities include use in animal feeds or as a raw material for the production of methanol or methane fuels. Commercial utilisation of these residues would require developments in harvesting and in methods for separating the various components of the crop.

Sugar cane fibre is not a suitable raw material for the manufacture of viscose rayon for use in textiles. It can bc used in various types of building materials, but it is not used for that purpose in Australia because the sugar cane areas are too distant from the main building board markets in the Sydney and Melbourne regions.

Some cattle feeding enterprises in Queensland have used sugar cane fibre as a feed component but little is being utilised at present.

I understand that research is being undertaken overseas on the utilisation of sugar cane fibre. For example, the United States and Brazil are examining its value as an energy source and a number of countries are studying its use in paper pulp manufacture, an outlet of increasing importance. CSIRO maintains a constant surveillance of research results published overseas on these subjects. 1 trust this answers your questions.

Yours sincerely. J.J. WEBSTER

Senator McLAREN:

– I sought leave of the Senate to have both these answers incorporated in Hansard because I asked them in the publicinterest. I would have thought that the Minister would have made some public anouncement in the Senate about the answers rather than write to me on a personal basis. 1 am not really criticising him for that. But I have to adopt this procedure to have those answers published in the publicrecord so that people who are interested in both of those matters I have raised in the Senate can have access to the answers which have been provided by the Minister.

The other matter I wish to raise will come within the ambit of the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) after 30 June this year. The subject 1 raise is a continuation of a matter 1 have raised in the Senate on previous occasions. I refer to the use of taxis in lieu of Commonwealth cars to transport members of the Parliament when the Houses rise at night. In recent times there has been great traffic congestion on the Senate side. Three ranks of taxis can be parked out there all competing with one another to get fares and to transport people home from Parliament House. The traffic congestion is so bad that those persons who have a parking permit and who park their cars in the spaces set aside for this purpose on the Senate side of Parliament House cannot move those motor cars when they desire to drive home. It is impossible to move motor vehicles from those places where they are parked at night until the taxi cabs are gone. They just will not budge. I often feel that 1 would like to have a bull bar on the front of my car when I drive out. When I try to leave, I switch on the headlights of my vehicle, toot the horn, but the taxis will not shift. If I had a bull bar on the front of my car, I would shift them. I hope that the Minister can do something to see that there is only one single line of cars outside the Senate side of a night so that people who drive their cars here–

Senator Withers:

– When do you want this done?

Senator McLAREN:

– I ask the Minister to do this after 30 June. 1 ask him whether he can do something to see that those taxi cabs line -

Senator Withers:

– See the President.

Senator McLAREN:

– I ask him to see that those taxi cabs line up single file so that the people who are entitled to drive their vehicles to the Parliament in the course of their duty and who are provided with a parking sticker can have easy access to and egress from those parking places around Parliament House.

I think the position has reached the stage where even the transport officer is in danger. He is ducking around out there among 3 lines of taxi cabs which are competing with one another. He runs the risk of being knocked down not only by one of those taxi cabs but also by one of the persons sitting in his or her car trying to get away from Parliament House at night. The Minister for Administrative Services has just said that this matter is the responsibility of the President. I hope that, whoever is responsible, some action will be taken and that this congestion we have experienced in the past will be remedied.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise tonight to draw attention to what has become a major scandal in the Australian Capital Territory and what is recognised as a major scandal by the medical profession throughout Australia. I refer to the industrial dispute between the Australian Capital Territory Medical Association and those doctors who are employed by the Australian Capital Territory Health Commission to provide a salaried special medical service at the 2 public hospitals in Canberra.

This matter was one of the first I raised in the Senate. On 25 March last year I called on the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, to take steps to resolve the dispute which not only was leading to the destruction of the salaried service and the careers of those highly qualified and committed doctors employed by it but also was actually endangering the health and even the lives of patients. Since that time, over 12 months ago, the Minister has made no progress towards reestablishing proper professional relationships between the two parts of the medical profession referred to. He has made no progress towards reestablishing proper professional behaviour on the part of the ACTMA members towards public patients.

The problems have become worse in the last 12 months during which Mr Hunt has been Minister for Health. The situation has become worse because the Minister’s goodwill in the matter has been eroded by 2 factors for which he, as a member of the Fraser Government, must accept responsibility. The first is the undue influence exerted on the present Government by the ACTMA in pursuit of narrow, protectionist, materialistic policy. The second is the ideological prejudice of that same Government against the principle of a salaried professional service. Acting on this prejudice, the Government has acted against the interests of the A.C.T. community.

The background to the dispute, for those honourable senators who seem not to be very familiar with this subject, is this: Before 1972. Canberra public hospitals had allowed any registered doctor to work as a specialist and to have specialist privileges in the hospitals. There were no accreditation procedures and thus no means of ensuring the development and maintenance of high standards. During the period of the Labor Government, the A.C.T. Health Commission appointed specialists to run a salaried specialist service to which the public, under Medibank, had access without charge. These doctors who were highly qualified and in many cases brought a specialty to Canberra medical practice that had not previously existed were appointed without the agreement of the ACTMA. The ACTMA then boycotted the salaried service. It refused to refer patients, even in areas where the salaried specialist was the best or even the only practitioner in the field. Patients from Canberra were referred to Sydney or Melbourne instead of to the highly competent doctors in Canberra. A case was reported in the media and raised in the other place. It involved a desperately ill victim of a motor accident who was left waiting for a crucial operation while the private surgeon dismissed a salaried anaesthetist and called a private anaesthetist. I have heard reports of many cases similar to that one.

In 1975 the ACTMA boycott of the salaried specialist service was found to be in breach of the Trade Practices Act. Yet it still persists, and it does so to the detriment of the Canberra people. Recognising the seriousness of this rupture of professional relationships, the Minister established a committee under Professor Hughes to review the situation and to recommend a new structure for medical services at the hospitals which would permit the salaried and the private doctors to operate side by side as they do, I might say, in every other public hospital throughout the Australian States. The report failed to recommend a satisfactory structure. But the outcome to date is this: Of the 40-doctor strength salaried specialist team, ten have resigned and only two have been appointed to replace them. The service is thus overworked and understaffed. The Minister has given in to the ACTMA pressure against salaried payments and granted a 70 per cent fee for service payment. This is grossly extravagant to the taxpayers and is entirely unjustified in a situation where the demand for publicservices would be very great if they were offered. It is also, of course, another blow against the principle of salaried professional services. The salaried specialists have been excluded from the decision-making bodies in the hospitals in which they work.

Al the time nl tin- election nf lite S medical committees thai head the :> .specialist medical units in the hospitals, the private doctors ran a how-to-vole ticket thai had nothing to do with medical competence and everything to do with ACTMA politics. As a result of this, the salaried specialists arc represented on only one of those committees. Because of ACTMA politics, the Minister’s ineptitude and the dismantling of Medibank, there arc now 2 classes of patients at Canberra hospitals. There are the levy patients who cannot gel the best treatment if the best happens to be a private doctor who in accordance with ACTMA policy will noi trent levy patients. The other class of patient is the privately insured patient who cannot gel the best treatment if the best happens to be a salaried specialist to whom the private patients’ own doctor refuses to refer patients. So the patients lose out in cither case.

Senator Mulvihill:

– They arc the ham in the sandwich.

Senator RYAN:

– That is correct. The accreditation procedures instituted by the Minister as a result of the Hughes report are similarly unsatisfactory for patients in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister has permitted a system whereby private doctors previously practising in Canberra hospitals regardless of competence, have automatically been given specialist status for the next 5 years. The salaried specialists, on the other hand, must undergo a rigorous selection and accreditation procedure before they arc appointed. Canberra patients thus cannot have confidence in the competence of all doctors accredited at the hospitals.

Similarly, the insecurity caused by the dispute has forced many families to take private insurance that they cannot really afford. In a letter to the Bulletin on 1 9 March this year the Minister stated that nearly 74 per cent of patients have private insurance. He said this to support his claim that there is not much demand Ibr public services. What that rate of public insurance for Canberra patients really shows is that people have been deprived of public services because of the dispute and have been forced into private insurance because of the Minister’s failure to resolve the dispute.

In conclusion, I quote from an editorial which appeared in the Canberra Times of 25 February 1977. I hope that the Minister will take note of my remarks and of the remarks made in the editorial, lt reads:

The crux of this unhappy situation is that, unless the doctors responsible are prepared to give medical ethics >i recedence over personal politics, mie day a patient may dic because iiic doctors concerned look lime till’ lt) argue the politics of Iiic Munition bc lore deciding what to do about him and who should do it. lt is noi inconceivable that a coronial inquest held as a result of such an incident could prove extremely embarrassing to some people. This is an intolerable situation that cannot bc allowed to exist any longer.

Mr Hunt has now removed some of the mystery and secrecy which surround the internal politics of the medical profession. He must pursue his efforts to bring the whole tillair into the open and to isolate iiic recalcitrants. The least the community can demand from the A.C.T. Medical Association is a formal public statement repudiating unethical practices of the kind allegedly Hiking place and pledging observance of the traditional obligations ofthe profession.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– On 30 March last year I spoke during the adjournment debate about the use of the word ‘bludger’. I made a plea to Press representatives to see whether they could use a different word when referring to recipients of social service benefits. I acknowledged then that my plea to the media would be a vain one. Indeed, it has been. Too often we still read and hear the term dole bludger’. Tonight, one year and one day later, I repeat my plea to the media not to use this word ‘bludger’ in the context of social welfare. The word has too many unsavoury connotations which cast a slur upon all persons who arc obliged to depend on social service benefits at a time of need.

With today’s enlightened media 1 should not have to refer Press representatives to a dictionary meaning of the word. Nevertheless, let me assist just a little because many dictionaries do not list the word bludger’. I no longer remember the dictionary from which I took the definition ofthe word ‘bludge’ last year, but it was as follows:

Bludge. I. To loaf, to impose (on someone). 2. A minor racket. 3. A period of loafing or dodging responsibility. 4. Whence, bludger ( sometimes a man living on immoral earnings of women).

The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary gives the following definition bludge. I. Shirk responsibility or hard work, scrounge, impose on. 2. easy job or assignment, period of loafing, bludger. Parasite, hanger on. loafer, idler. English slang: Pimp, prostitute “s bully.

I am sure that when the word ‘bludger’ is used in the media those meanings are not the meanings the media intends to convey in relation to the people about whom they are speaking.

Similarly, I should prefer to see the media not use the word ‘dole’, although I am sure that with this plea I shall have even less success than I had with my plea in respect of the word ‘bludger’. The word ‘dole’ has unsavoury connotations which reflect on persons who are receiving benefits. I took the opportunity of consulting the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which lists the meaning of ‘dole ‘ as follows: dole. I. (archaic) lol. destiny. 2. Charitable distribution, charitable (especially sparing, niggardly), gilt of food, clothes, or money. The dole ( colloquial ). relief claimable by the unemployed.

It seems to me that the word ‘dole’ should not be used when referring to unemployment benefits. We see it too often. It appeared in today’s Australian under the heading: ‘Your Government Gets Tough With Dole Scheme’. On page 3 of the Courier-Mail, a newspaper from the State which I represent, appears the headline: Government to Review Dole System’. I say to media representatives: Please use the rich English language which we have at our disposal. Let us not use cheap words which carry offensive overtones. Again, I realise that I am probably making a vain plea but, always full of optimism, I hope that perhaps my call will not fall on totally deaf ears.

I speak tonight also on a matter which I regard as serious indeed. I am rather sorry that somehow the arrangements I made have fallen down. I expected the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator Durack, to have been informed that I was going to speak -

Senator Withers:

– He was but he had to keep an urgent appointment elsewhere.

Senator COLSTON:

– Fine. I expected to see Senator Durack here, but I presume that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) will look after my comments admirably. This afternoon my attention was drawn to an article appearing in the Redcliffe Herald, a newspaper which is published in Redcliffe near Brisbane.

Senator Withers:

– Not the Border Watch”!

Senator COLSTON:

-Not the Border Watch; it is the Redcliffe Herald. The richness of the English language was not employed in the composition of this article; instead quite shady journalism was employed. I find it difficult to read parts of the article because of its unsavoury approach, but it is important that it be read to the Senate and I shall do so. On page 1 of the Redcliffe Herald dated Wednesday, 30 March, under the heading ‘Dole bludgers are no mythloath to work’, the following is stated:

The peninsula has its share of dole bludgers and they ure married men with children.

They include a man with two children, who has hud seven job refusals from the Commonwealth Employment Service since mid January and another with three children who has had nine.

They did not show up for several of the interviews and at others were so obviously loath to take on the jobs they were passed over for more suitable applicants.

The man with two children lives in a caravan and collects $87.50 unemployment relief weekly plus child endowment.

The one with three children owns his own home and collects $ 104 per week plus endowment-all tax free.

Failing to attend several job interviews results in nullification from the Department of Social Security to “show cause’ why unemployment benefits should not be withdrawn.

Payments are suspended when recipients cannot justify their failure to attend such an interview.

But under existing legislation this is little deterrent-they can apply for reinstatement of the benefit almost immediately.

Under the heading ‘Have Job’ the following appears:

Continuing to receive unemployment benefits after taking a job is another practice which is rife.

The Commonwealth Employment Service at Redcliffe processes at least one of these daily.

One of the most blatant they have handled in recent times was the case of a married man with five children who was receiving $ 109 plus endowment weekly and earning up to $40 a duy working privately.

Another found working in u factory in Brisbane WaS earning more than $200 a week. He had received more than $2,000 in unemployment relief to which he was not entitled.

Current bright spot in the peninsula’s employment position ure the successes of the Commonwealth Youth Support Scheme and the steady rise in job vacancies.

Under the heading ‘ Future ‘ the article states:

Mr J. Neil, the officer in charge, said last week that joh vacancies in February had definitely shown an upward trend.

He said that the number had steadied since the National Wage case had commenced. In the short-term future employment prospects could depend on the outcome of the wage case

Indications were that small businesses would defer uppointing stuff us long as possible if full indexation was granted.

Mr Neil paid tribute to the young people taking part in the Redcliffe Community Youth Support Scheme.

He said thai their standard of dress and behaviour was un example the rest of the community could well follow.

There hud been un uptrend in the number of vacancies available for school leavers and at the moment several were being placed in employment daily, said Mr Neil.

I should like to point out that there could be some slight errors in the article I have just quoted. If there are any errors I expect that they are only slight. If any have crept in, it is because 1 took down the contents of the article as it was dictated to me on the telephone today. I have not yet seen the actual article but I expect that I will do so tomorrow. I should also say, because of the comments I will make shortly, that I tried in vain from about 5.15 this afternoon until about 10 o’clock this evening to contact the editor of the Redcliffe Herald to ask him about certain aspects of the article and to inform him that I would be speaking on it tonight. I was not able to contact the editor.

There are numerous errors of fact in this article and many aspects of it which are deliberately misleading. For instance, the article states that the man with 2 children lives in a caravan and collects $87.50 unemployment relief weekly, plus child endowment. I presume that the child endowment, or family allowance as it is now called, is paid to his wife and not to him. The article also states that the man with 3 children owns his own home and collects $104 a week plus endowment, all tax free.

Senator Withers:

– He might be a widower.

Senator COLSTON:

-I will come back to that in a moment and mention why 1 think the man does have a wife. As I was saying, the man with 3 children is stated to own his own home and to collect $104 a week, plus endowment, all tax free. That is not quite correct, because unemployment benefit now is not tax free. Finally, the article mentions a procedure which follows if a person is suspected of not attending job interviews. It states that he has to show cause why his unemployment benefits should not be withdrawn. That is not the procedure which is followed. There are other errors in the article, but let me not dwell on them. I would rather look at the more serious nature of this article. In a quite authoritative manner the newspaper tells the world about dole bludgers- not alleged dole bludgers but one who it says is on the peninsula and one whom it describes in detail. Let me say that I do not accept its statements, but many readers would accept them as truth. 1 wish to refer to some aspects of this article which are serious indeed. I believe that there has been some leak from the Commonwealth Employment Service in Redcliffe and, if that is so, it is a very serious matter. The article states first of all that the alleged dole bludgers include a man with 2 children who has refused 7 job offers from the Commonwealth Employment Service since mid-January and another man with 3 children who has refused 9 job offers. Where did the Redcliffe Herald get that information? Did someone from the CES leak it or give it to the

Redcliffe Herald! If it was leaked or given to the Redcliffe Herald, it is a serious matter indeed. The article mentions the man who lives in a caravan and collects $87.50 unemployment relief, plus child endowment. The Minister for Administative Services (Senator Withers) said that he could be a widower. I believe that he is not a widower because I think I know the person about whom the Redcliffe Herald is talking. If it is the same person, he no longer lives in a caravan and he no longer collects $87.50 unemployment benefit- the Redcliffe Herald calls it relief. He had this benefit terminated. He has lodged an appeal, and I hope that appeal will be successful. Having had his benefit terminated, he had to sell his caravan to obtain some money to keep living. Again, a specific example is quoted by the newspaper and it seems inevitable that it was given to the newspaper by someone connected with the CES.

The article also states that the Commonwealth Employment Service at Redcliffe processes at least one case daily relating to people who have received the unemployment benefit since taking a job. It goes on to talk about a person who is receiving $109 plus endowment and earning up to $40 a day working privately, again, where did the Redcliffe Herald get that information about a specific case? Who gave the information to the newspaper? The article goes on to talk about a person who is allegedly working in Brisbane and had received more than $2,000 in unemployment relief to which he was not entitled. I have made it clear in this place before that I will not defend people who take benefits, whether they be unemployment benefits or any other social security benefits, if they are not entitled to them. I think we have all had instances of people coming to see us who have claimed that they have been taken off a benefit wrongly and when we have investigated we have found that they should not have been receiving the benefit. But those are just a small percentage of the cases that are referred to us.

The aspect of this article to which I do object is that it appears that someone has been giving information to the Redcliffe Herald which really should be confidential. I have heard many a disturbing rumour about the Redcliffe office of the Commonwealth Employment Service. At this stage I do not intend to relate the tales that surround the Redcliffe CES, but I am beginning to believe the people who say that they do not get a fair go when they go to that office. Did Mr Neill, who is mentioned in this article, give this information about clients to the Redcliffe Herald! If he did, he had no moral right to do so. As far as I am aware, he had no legal right to do it either. Perhaps it was not Mr Neill, but the evidence points strongly to a massive leak at the Redcliffe CES. Apparently the newspaper got its information from somewhere because one case referred to is too close to one that I know of personally to be a coincidence. I think that the other cases have probably been taken from actual cases which have gone through Redcliffe.

Senator Webster:

– How did you get the information?

Senator COLSTON:

– Apparently the Minister was not listening.

Senator Webster:

– I realise you believe that the CES had the information. I wondered how you got it, because it could be another source of leak.

Senator COLSTON:

– I think it is important that I answer the Minister. I said that I had knowledge of one particular case. I have that knowledge because the person came to me for help when his benefit was taken away. I mentioned earlier that he had lodged an appeal with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, and I hope that the appeal will be successful. I have personal knowledge of the case because the person came to me for help. It looks as though someone in the Redcliffe CES is spreading tales about clients. Does that mean that confidentiality means nothing once one walks through the door of the office of the CES at Redcliffe? Due to the lateness of the hour I shall not make any further comments on this serious matter. Nevertheless, I expect the Minister to carry out an immediate and thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding this scurrilous article. I expect to hear the result of the investigation very soon.

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · Victoria · NCP/NP

– Several matters have been raised by Senator McLaren this evening. The general thrust of his speech was that in answer to 2 questions without notice I supplied 2 written replies and as they were not incorporated in Hansard at any time, he sought leave to have the answers incorporated in Hansard this evening. It is the usual practice for answers in those circumstances not to be incorporated in Hansard. If an honourable senator places a question on notice he will get a written reply and it will be incorporated in Hansard. But if an honourable senator asks a question without notice he will find that if the Minister responds in writing to his question, the response will not be incorporated in Hansard. It is up to the senator asking the question to determine how he receives his reply. I regret that Senator McLaren did not advise me that he would be raising these matters. If he had done so I may have been able to provide some further information about the subjects he raised.

Another matter about which Senator McLaren complained comes within the portfolio of the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) whom I represent. Senator McLaren’s queries related to taxis and the way in which they cluster outside the Senate door. 1 think it is fair that the honourable senator has raised that matter if the taxis are interfering with the free access of those who have permission to park outside the Senate entrance. I shall draw that situation to the attention ofthe Minister and attempt to alleviate the problem.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I should like to deal with the second matter raised by Senator McLaren to which my colleague and friend, the Minister for Science, Senator Webster, adverted- that is, the car parking. The honourable senator quite rightly said that it would appear that the responsibility for what is known as the taxi fleet will pass to my Department after 1 July. I will examine the problem. From my personal knowledge, I am aware of the problems of parking around this building. I also know that Senator McLaren is one of the few members of Parliament- I do not think he will mind me saying this- who bring their own cars to this building. My colleague and housemate, the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Garland) is another.

Senator McLaren:

- Senator Gietzelt is another.

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes, but there are not many. When one looks at all the parking signs outside this building marked ‘Members of Parliament only’ it is surprising to find that my colleague, the honourable member for Curtin, on a number of occasions has not been able to obtain a parking spot because all sorts of odd bods park in those spots and seem to have total and complete immunity. It is high time the problem was examined. With my colleague, Senator Webster, I will take up this matter with the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley), under whose jurisdiction the whole matter comes. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that members of Parliament ought to have some priorities both within and without this building. It is an oldfashioned view but I still hold to it.

I have no direct knowledge of the matter raised by Senator Ryan but I will certainly pass on her comments to the Minister for Health ( Mr

Hunt). I turn now to the matters raised by Senator Colston. I think Senator Colston will agree that rarely does any member of the Ministry use the terms ‘dole’ or ‘dole bludger’. It is common parlance amongst us to refer to UBs which, as all honourable senators will be aware, is short for unemployment benefits.

Senator Colston:

– I was referring to the Press, not to the Ministry.

Senator WITHERS:

– I realise that, but how the Press likes to describe things is its own business. I suppose it will always go on doing that. I was delighted to think that Senator Colston recognised the richness of the English language. I only wish we heard more of it in this place. If it were not for the Hansard reporters with their great capacity and knowledge of the English language I think Hansard would be almost totally unreadable. I share Senator Colston’s optimism that the English language may be better used within the media but that is a matter for the media to look after itself.

Senator Colston raised a matter concerning the Redcliffe Herald. I will pass on his allegations, through the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack), to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) because they are very serious allegations.

I agree with Senator Colston that it is a serious matter if information is leaked from within the Public Service. I am delighted to discover tonight that he regards this matter as scandalous and believes it is quite improper for members of the Public Service to leak documents or letters particularly, as Senator Colston pointed out, concerning those who are applying for unemployment benefits. I think Senator Colston would agree with the general proposition that it would be scandalous for any member of the Public Service to leak any matter which comes within his knowledge or control, no matter by what means. I share Senator Colston’s view that for publicservants to leak any information in their possession to the media or to members of Parliament is scandalous. I hope that he will try to exercise some restraint on his colleagues and when they quote from direct or indirect leaks they have obtained, I hope Senator Colston will say to them: ‘You ought not to ask a question based on that information because it is scandalous that the information should be leaked from within the Public Service’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.56 p.m. till Wednesday, 20 April 1977, at 2.30 p.m. unless otherwise called together in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.

page 765

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Urban and Regional Development Programs: Commonwealth Funding (Question No. 2)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

With relation to urban and regional affairs programs, has Queensland been disadvantaged by lack of Commonwealth funding in comparison with other States, as was claimed by the Queensland Minister for Lands, Forestry, National Parks and Wildlife Service in the Queensland Parliament on 26 October 1976. If so, (a) what are the details; (b) to what extent is the Queensland Government responsible for the current situation; and (c) is it correct that ‘overtures are still being made to the Commonwealth with a view to having the position rectified ‘, as the Queensland Minister stated on 26 October. If so, what are the details.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth has made financial assistance available to Queensland in accordance with urban and regional development programs for which Queensland has entered into financial agreements with the Commonwealth on the same basis as other participating States.

The assistance made available to Queensland since 1973-74 under these agreements has been consistent with that provided for other States, and Queensland has not been disadvantaged.

Queensland did not enter into financial agreements with respect to land or growth centre programs, for which assistance was previously available.

Parts (a) and (b) of the question then lapse in view of above.

With respect to part (c) of the question, I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Parliamentary Question No. 1 1 83 which in part stated:

Following discussion at the Premiers’ Conference in February 1976, the Premier of Queensland wrote to the Prime Minister on 17 February 1976, seeking the provision of funds through the Commonwealth’s urban expansion and redevelopment programs. The request was for approximately $40m to be made available over four (4) years. However, the request contained no details as to how the funds were to be used nor whether they were required specifically for growth centres programs. The Premier wrote to the Prime Minister also on 1 1 March 1 976, on the question of the execution of an appropriate agreement and again did not indicate any details of the proposed ‘expansion in urban development’.

The Premier was also advised that his request for additional funds had to be considered in the context of the Government’s review of expenditure and its exercising budgetary restraint.

Urban and Regional Development Progams Commonwealth Funding (Question No. 6)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

With relation to Senate Question No. 1 183, and the two letters which were mentioned in the answer to that question, what advice was given to the Premier of Queensland following his request for funds on 17 February 1976 and following his subsequent letter on 11 March 1976.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

My answer to question No. 1 183 has already outlined the essential features of the present position. It would not be normal practice to disclose the nature and detail of confidential correspondence between the Prime Minister and a Premier.

Statehood for Northern Territory: Costs Involved (Question No. 15)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

What are the estimates of the costs involved in providing statehood for the Northern Territory.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

There are no such estimates of costs available. However, in the process of transferring functions to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, it is expected that some rationalisation of existing staffing arrangements in the region can be achieved.

The detailed financial arrangements to apply to the Northern Territory are presently being examined by an interdepartmental committee established for that purpose.

Agnes Waters Sand Mining Project (Question No. 18)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1 977:

Does the Minister accept that a $14m sand mining project at Agnes Waters has been deferred by Mineral Deposits Ltd because of the Federal Government’s ‘confused environmental policies’ as was claimed by the Premier of Queensland and reported in the Courier-Mail of 3 February 1977. If not, what factors docs the Minister and his Department consider contributed to the deferral of the project.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I suggest that it is a matter Tor Mineral Deposits Ltd to disclose, if it so desires, the particular considerations that may have led the company to defer the Agnes Waters project.

Commercial Radio Stations: Relayed ABC News Broadcasts (Question No. 38)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

With reference to the answer to House of Representatives Question No. 1214, which Australian Broadcasting Commission station does each ofthe commercial stations listed in the answer to Question No. 1214 tune in to in order to receive and relay Australian Broadcasting Commission news broadcasts.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Commercial stations which broadcast Australian Broadcasting Commission news do not in fact tunc in to ABC stations but use landlines from appropriate ABC stations which they hire from Telecom Australia for their relays of ABC news.

In my reply on 9 December to Question No. 1214 I intended to indicate merely that all commercial stations which received and broadcast ABC news bulletins did so in the same form as they were transmitted from national transmitters. They are not provided with bulletins specially prepared by the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Medibank (Question No. 44)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

With reference to part (b) ofthe Minister’s reply to Question No. 1316 (Senate Hansard, 9 December 1976), when is it likely that investigations as to whether the Government will undertake a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of Medibank will be completed.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In view of the short period of time that Medibank has been operating, the consequent lack of reliable data, and the need for other essential tasks to be completed, the investigation referred to in my reply to Question No. 1316 has been deferred.

Defence Personnel: Holiday Resorts _ (Question No. 53)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What holiday resorts are provided Tor Australian Defence personnel throughout Australia and overseas.
  2. Were these resorts built or purchased and what was the date of these resorts.
  3. If there have been changes in the number of accommodation units at any of the resorts since purchase or building, what are the details.
  4. What was the average number of units which were occupied at each resort for each month since the date of purchase or building.

  5. (a) For each financial year for each resort since date of purchase or building what has been the Army’s financial commitment by way of:

    1. capital, (including cost of purchase or building): and
    2. non-capital funds; and
    1. what percentage of this commitment was recovered by rents for each financial year for each resort since date of purchase or building.
  6. Who is entitled to book accommodation at these resorts and who is entitled to accompany the person who books the accommodation.
  7. What is the current cost of accommodation at each resort.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Some holiday resorts provided for Australian defence personnel in Australia are conducted as State registered public companies or co-operatives. Information concerning the affairs of these companies/co-operatives may be obtained from the respective registered office. Details are:

The RAN Ski Club. Incorporated under the Companies Act of Victoria.Conducts holiday resorts at Mt Buller and Perisher Valley. Registered office is located at HMAS Lonsdale, Rouse Street, Port Melbourne. Victoria 3207.

North Queensland Area Holiday Resort. Registered in Queensland on 2 August 1972. Conducts a holiday resort 16 miles north of Cairns. Registered office is located at Headquarters District Support Group. Laverack Barracks, Townsville. Queensland 48 1 3.

Southern Queensland Army Holiday Resort. Originally registered in Queensland on 27 September 1962: company name changed on 12 February 1974. Conducts a holiday resort at Coolangatta. Registered office is located at Bilinga. Gold Coast. Queensland 4225.

Army Alpine Lodge Co-operative Limited. Registered in accordance with the N.S.W. Corporation Act on 9 May 1968. Conducts a holiday resort at Thredbo. Registered office is located at Victoria Barracks. Paddington. New South Wales 2021.

Bulwarra Co-operative Limited. Registered in accordance wilh the N.S.W. Corporation Act on 28 February 1969. Conducts a holiday resort at Terrigal. Registered office is located at Victoria Barracks. Paddington. N.S.W. 2021.

Army Holiday Homes S.A. Incorporated. Originally registered under the S.A. Companies Act on 6 May 1968: company name changed on 15 February 1974. Conduct* holiday resorts at South Lakes Estate. Goolwa and Port Lincoln. Registered office is located at Keswick Barracks Keswick. South Australia 5035.

RAAF Welfare Recreational Company. Incorporated under Part HI of the Companies Ordinance (A.C.T. ) 1962-1974. Conducts a holiday resort at Coffs Harbour N.S.W. Registered office is located at Peat. Marwick. Mitchell and Company, 19 London Circuit, Canberra City, Australian Capital Territory 260 1 .

No holiday resorts are provided overseas. Services operated holiday resorts provided for Australian Defence Force personnel throughout Australia are:

Navy

LakeBurrill, Ulladulla, New South Wales.

Forster, New South Wales.

Army

Magnetic Island, Queensland (Amaroo). Mt Buller, Victoria (Army Alpine Lodge).

Lake Eildon, Victoria (Houseboats).

Queenscliff, Victoria (Crows Nest).

Lake Eppalock, Victoria (Caravan Park).

Rottnest Island, Western Australia (Kingston Barracks).

Storm Bay, Tasmania ( Fort Direction).

Air Force

Barmera, South Australia (Lake Bonney).

  1. Some resorts were established many years ago and as some holiday units serve a dual purpose, early occupancy figures cannot be guaranteed. It must also be realised that each resort has peak and off-peak periods:

Navy

Lake Burrill. Occupancy records are only available from February 1972 onwards. For the period February 1972 to January 1977 inclusive the average monthly occupancy rate was50.62 percent.

Forster. Occupancy records are only available from August 1973 onwards. For the period August 1973 to January 1977 inclusive the average monthly occupancy rate was 77.36 per cent.

Army

Magnetic Island. Occupancy details prior to 13 December 1969 are not available. Since that date the annual occupancy rate per month is 80 per cent.

Mt Buller. No accurate occupancy records are available prior to 1 976. The average monthly occupancy rate for 1976 was 27.08 percent.

Lake Eildon. Occupancy records from August 1975 onwards show an average monthly occupancy rate of 65 percent.

Queenscliff. Occupancy records are only available from November 1975 onwards. Since that date the average monthly occupancy rate is 62.22 per cent.

Lake Eppalock. Occupancy records are only available from November 1975 onwards. Since that date thea average monthly occupancy rate is 8.03 per cent.

Rottnest Island. Theresort fulfills the dual roles of training and recreational accommodation. The average monthly occupancy rate of the resort since commencement is 8 1 percent.

Storm Bay. The resort fulfills the dual roles of camp reserve accommodation and recreational accommodation. Available records indicate an average monthly occupancy rate of 26 per cent.

Air Force

Barmera. Occupancy detail is available for the period September 1971 to January 1977, based on the number of persons residing in the two units each month. The average monthly occupancy is 3 1 persons. Both units are occupied most weekends.

  1. Except for married quarters being used at times for holiday purposes where the rents are paid to the Commonwealth, resorts are funded from non-public funds obtained from the Army Central Amenities Fund. District Amenities Funds and, in some cases, voluntary subscription:

Magnetic Island

Capital Outlay: 1961 -$60.00

Non-capital outlay: 1 962-63-Unit donations totalling $ 1 , 020.00 1964-65- Military District Amenities Fund grant of $3,000.00

Per cent recovered by rents: Resort rents are recovered to District Amenities funds. No recovery of outlayed expenditure has been necessary as such were in the form of non-public donations and grants.

MtBuller

Capital Outlay: 1964-65- Military District Amenities Fund grant of $5,800.00 1966-67- Military District Amenities Fund grant of $5,100.00

Non-capital outlay: 1968-69- Military District Amenities Fund grant of $1,000.00 1970-71- Military District Amenities Fund grant of $2,600.00

Per cent recovered by rents: Resort rents are recovered to District amenities funds. No recovery of outlayed expenditure has been necessary as such was in the form of non-public grants.

Lake Eildon

Capital Outlay: 1975- Military District Amenities Fund grant of $28,442.00 1976- Military District Amenities Fund grant of $4,710.00

Non-capital outlay: 1 976- Military District Amenities Fund loan of $1,983.00

Per cent recovered by rents: Resort rents are recovered to District amenities funds. Percentage recovery of noncapital outlay loan expenditure only is: 1975- 10 percent 1976- 105 percent

Queenscliff

Capital Outlay: Nil, except for lease costs.

Non-capital outlay: Military District Amenities Fund grants of:

1960- $8,000.00

1963- $3,000.00

1964- $2,400.00

Military District Amenities Fund loan of:

1961 - $4,600.00

Per cent recovered by rents: Resort rents are recovered to District amenities fund. Records of the percentage recovery of non-capital outlay loan expenditure only, from 1 965 onwards, show: 1965- 11 percent 1966- 64 per cent 1967- 62 percent

Lake Eppalock

Capital Outlay: 1972- Military District Amenities Fund grant of$5,000.00

Non-capital outlay: 1975- Military District Amenities Fund grant of $3,778.00

Per cent recovered by rents: Resort rents are recovered to District amenities funds. No recovery of outlayed expenditure has been necessary as such was in the form of non-public grants.

Rottnest Island. No expenditure has been made from Amenities Funds to lease or maintain this resort because of its dual role as training accommodation and holiday homes. Rents received from holiday use are paid to the Commonwealth.

Storm Bay. No expenditure has been made from Amenities Funds to lease or maintain this resort because of its dual role as overflow accommodation and holiday homes. Rents received from holiday use are paid to the Commonwealth.

  1. –

Navy

All servicemen and public servants employed by the Department of Defence are entitled to make a booking. There are no rules regarding who may or may not accompany tenants.

Army

All members of the Australian Regular Army. Army Reserve, civilians employed by the Department of Defence and other Service peronnel. In all cases they may be accompanied by their immediate family. Some resorts do allow friends provided the person entitled to book accompanies them.

Air Force

All serving members of the RAAF, Army and Navy, civilian employees of the RAAF or Department of Defence (Air Force Office), retired members of the RAAF and serving members of the Active Citizen Air Force are eligible to apply for accommodation and to have members of their immediate family accompany them. Family is defined as nextofkin and approved/recognised dependents.

  1. –

Navy

Army

Magnetic Island. $30.00 per unit per week.

MtBuller

June to September- Adults $35.00 per week. Children $17.50 per week.

October to May-Adults $21.00 per week. Children $ 10.50 per week.

Lake Eildon

November to April-$ 1 10.60 per unit per week.

May to October- $84.00 per unit per week.

Queenscliff

November to April- $84.00 per unit per week.

May to October-$28.00 per unit per week.

Lake Eppalock. $ 14.00 per site per week all year.

Rottnest Island. $ 1 1 . 20 per unit per week.

Storm Bay. $28.00 per unit per week.

Air Force

Barmera. $4.00 per unit per night.

Social Security Appeals Tribunals (Question No. 65)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. How many appeals relating to (a) unemployment benefit, (b) sickness benefit, (c) age pension, (d) invalid pension, (e) supporting mothers’ benefit, (f) special benefit. (g) family allowance, (h) orphan’s pension, (i) widow’s pension, (j) domiciliary nursing care benefit, (k) nursing home benefit, (l ) handicapped child ‘s allowance, ( m ) maternity allowance and (n) student allowance were dealt with in each State by Social Security Appeals Tribunals in the December quarter of 1976.
  2. What are the detailed results of the appeals in question corresponding to the headings provided in the Minister’s answer to Senate Question No. 130, vide Senate Hansard. 4 May 1976, page 1515.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The required statistics are provided in the following table.

However, Social Security Appeals Tribunals do not deal with appeals concerning domiciliary nursing care benefit or nursing home benefit, which are the responsibility of the Minister for Health.

Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Personal Staff (Question No. 87)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

Is the Minister currently seeking a new person for his personal staff. If so, what was the reason for the departure of the former incumbent of the position concerned.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No.

Prince Norodom Sihanouk (Question No. 107)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

What action has the Australian Government taken to ascertain the whereabouts and safety of the former Cambodian Chief of State, Prince Norodom Sihanouk?

Senator Withers:
LP

– The Acting Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Australia does not have diplomatic relations with Kampuchea and has no first-hand knowledge of the situation there. The Department of Foreign Affairs nevertheless endeavours to keep itself abreast of developments in Kampuchea through such information as is available to Australia’s diplomatic missions abroad. The difficulties of obtaining authoritative information on any particular question concerning Kampuchea are compounded by the limited ability of observers to follow the situation there.
  2. At the Colombo Conference of Non-Aligned Nations in August 1976, the head of the Cambodian delegation in answer to a question said that Prince Sihanouk ‘is living in style appropriate to a former Head of State’. A paper published in Britain late last year by Mr Philip Goodhart. Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party’s Defence Committee, concluded that it was probable that Prince Sihanouk was living in Phnom Penh. An earlier story emanating from Paris that the Prince was dead was subsequently revealed to be a hoax.

Oil Tanker Mishaps (Question No. 114)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many instances of oil tanker mishaps were reported during 1976.
  2. ) How many mishaps resulted in oil pollution of the sca.
  3. What were the locations of the mishaps referred to in ( 1 ).
  4. What were the names of tankers involved and what oil company and/or agent operate such tanker charter.
  5. How many such oil spillages resulted in prosecutions and what were the detailed outcome of such actions.
  6. Were all the tankers involved in mishaps covered by the TOVALOP Indemnification Fund.
  7. If the answer to (6) is in the negative, what were the names of such tankers and who were their owners and for which oil company operating in (a) Australia and (b) elsewhere were they on charter to.
Senator Cotton:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) In 1976 fourteen ( 14) tanker mishaps were reported.
  2. Ten ( 10) resulted in oil pollution.
  3. Newcastle (2), Westernport (6), Yarraville (I), Tamar River ( I ), Gore Bay ( 1 ), Sydney ( 1 ), Kwinana ( 1 ). off W.A. coast (1).
  1. 6) All tankers involved are covered by TOVALOP.

Department of Education: Apprentices Employed (Question No. 155)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 8 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Education since 1 July 1970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. ) to ( 3 ) The Department of Education has not employed apprentices in any trade from 1 July 1 970.

Department of Social Security: Apprentices Employed (Question No. 158)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Social Security since 1 July 1970.
  2. 2 ) By branch, for each year from 1 970 to 1 976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977 what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Department of Social Security has never employed any apprentices. The nature of the Department ‘s work does not lend itself to the employment of apprentices.

Department of Science: Apprentices Employed (Question No. 167)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) In what trades have apprentices been employed in the Department of Science since 1 July 1970.
  2. By branch, for each year from 1970 to 1976, what was (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the totalnumber of first year apprentices engaged.
  3. In 1977, what is (a) the total number of apprentices employed and (b) the total number of first year apprentices engaged in each branch of the Department.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) None.
  2. (a) nil (b) nil.
  3. (a) nil (b) nil.

Wivenhoe Dam Project (Question No. 175)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 8 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) What financial assistance has the Federal Government provided for the Wivenhoe dam project in Queensland.
  2. Has the Queensland Government sought financial assistance for the project from the Federal Government in the past 12 months. If so, what are the details.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)None.

  1. No.

Air Transport Studies: Sydney and Brisbane (Question No. 180)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport the following question, upon notice, on 9 March 1977:

Is the Federal Government currently undertaking a study, in conjunction with the Government of New South Wales, to determine a strategy to accommodate the future air transport needs of Sydney. If so, when is it planned to conduct a similar investigation of the future air transport needs of Brisbane, with particular respect to the requirements for the proposed 1982 Commonwealth Games to be held in Brisbane.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Federal Government, in conjunction with the New South Wales Government, is presently undertaking a study to determine the future major airport needs of the Sydney region.

A review of the long term strategy for Brisbane Airport is being carried out by the Department of Transport and is taking into account the January 1972 report of the Commonwealth/State/City Advisory Committee, the July 1975 report of the economic evaluation by the Bureau of Transport Economics of alternative development options as well as the latest information available on other relevant matters. As a result of this review it is intended to recommend to the Government a long term strategy for its consideration.

With regard to the timing of elements of the overall development scheme, the need to establish an economic justification for each step particularly in relation to the condition of the economy will be appreciated.

The airport requirements associated with the proposed 1982 Commonwealth Games have been examined by the Department of Transport and I am advised that the new international terminal complex is well placed to handle the increased passenger traffic likely to result and that the airport runway system is adequate to serve the aircraft which would be carrying this traffic. Moreover, the international airlines have informed the Department of Transport that they do not see any significant problems in handling increased passenger traffic that may arise from the 1 982 Commonwealth Games.

Recovery of Social Security Overpayments (Question No. 216)

Senator Messner:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister provide details of the value of all social security benefit payments, including unemployment benefit written off as irrecoverable in each State, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, for the year ended 30 June 1976.
  2. In general terms, what recovery procedures were implemented and what was the success rate.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. ) The values of all social security benefit overpayments written-off as irrecoverable in each State (including Territories where appropriate) for the year ended 30 June 1976 were:

A significant proportionof the above amounts was written off subject to recovery from any future entitlement and may therefore be recovered at a later date.

  1. (a) Where authorised by sections 140(2)and 140(3) of the Social Services Act, social security benefit overpayments are recovered by withholding all or part of the debtor’s current entitlement. Where this alternative is not available, debtors are requested to make cash refunds. Departmental field officers are used as necessary to maintain contact with debtors. Civil action for recovery is taken in cases where such proceedings are considered justified.

    1. A success rate for recovery action cannot be given in absolute terms within the context of a single financial year because many overpayments are recovered and/or remain outstanding over a number of years. Confining the analysis to the year ended 30 June 1976, of the total amount of $ 16.9m (comprising balances brought forward on1 July 1975 $4.8m and overpayments raised during 1975-76 $ 12.1m) potentially recoverable, $6.4m (or 38 per cent) was recovered.

Alice Springs: Proposed Oil Refinery (Question No. 221)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 9 March 1 977:

  1. 1 ) Has an environmental impact study been carried out by Magellan Petroleum Pty Ltd on the proposed establishment of an oil refinery near Alice Springs.
  2. If such a study has been made, will the Minister indicate whether or not it will be made available to the public.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am advised that a report on an environmental study, carried out in connection with a proposal to establish an oil refinery near Alice Springs, was submitted in evidence to the Royal Commission on Petroleum. Should a firm proposal to develop the oil refinery be put to the Commonwealth Government for approval the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act would apply and the existing report and its public review would be considered in the context of the requirements of the Administrative Procedures under the Act.

Queensland: Alleged Withholding of Welfare Funds (Question No.253)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social

Security, upon notice, on 15 March 1977:

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the statement by the Director of the Queensland Council of Social Service. Mr Denis Guilfoyle, reported in the Courier Mail dated 3

February 1977, that the Queensland Government is Queensland’s biggest social problem, and that the Queensland Government is withholding funds provided to it by the Federal Government for badly needed welfare work. If so, (a) what welfare funds are being withheld by the Queensland Government and (b) what action is the Federal Government taking as a result of the withholding of funds by the Queensland Government.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I am aware of the article in the Courier-Mail dated 3 February 1977 to which the honourable senator refers.

I have asked my Department to examine the matters to which the honourable senator’s question refers and I am informed by my Department that it is not aware of any instances of funds it administers being withheld by the Queensland Government.

Office of Youth Affairs (Question No. 258)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 10 March 1977.

  1. When will the Office of Youth Affairs commence operation.
  2. What is the anticipated Budget allocation for the Office (a) for the remainder of 1976-77, and (b) for 1977-78.
  3. What is the proposed staffing establishment for the Office of Youth Affairs for each State and Territory.
  4. What are the details, including the method of determination of salary and entitlements of the proposed engagement of staff from outside the Public Service on a short-term basis.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) An implementation group has been established within the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development to set up a formal structure, appoint a Director of the Office of Youth Affairs, recruit staff and answer Ministerial correspondence.

It is expected that the Director of the Office of Youth Affairs will be appointed shortly and that the Office will be fully operational by September 1977. This does not mean that the functions of the Office will have to wait until it is fully operational. The implementation group will initiate modest efforts in all functions immediately.

  1. –

    1. Expenditure by the Office of Youth Affairs during 1976-77 is expected to be small and will be absorbed within existing Budget allocations for the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development.
    2. This is a matter for consideration in the Budget context.
  2. lt is not envisaged that the staff of the Office of Youth Affairs will ever be very large. The number of operative staff at any one time will depend upon the speed with which people from outside the Service can be recruited and established in Canberra where all staff will be located.
  3. When the Government decided to establish an Office of Youth Affairs it directed that at least half of the staff should be recruited from outside the Service on a short-term basis and that the Chairman of the Public Service Board be consulted on any proposals for outside appointments. Consequently the level of salary and other entitlements for staff engaged from outside the Service will be determined jointly by the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development and the Public Service Board taking into account such factors as the type of work to be performed and the special qualifications and experience of the appointees.

Bradshaw Waste Industries Pty Ltd (Question No. 301)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) What are the terms and conditions that apply to Bradshaw Waste Industries Pty Ltd, who operate in the Homebush Bay area of Sydney under land licence to the Department of Administrative Services.
  2. Do the terms of such a lease make it mandatory that the depot remain open between the hours of 6.30 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. to meet the needs of residents of the Municipality of Concord
  3. If the conditions of (2) have not been adhered to, what powers has the Minister to ensure that the time schedule mentioned in (2 ) is adhered to.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Bradshaw Waste Industries Pty Ltd holds a licence to deposit fill on a specified part of the Commonwealth land at Silverwater near Homebush Bay. The terms and conditions of the licence do not provide for the public to have access to the area. However, the company does operate a garbage tip in Hill Road, Homebush on land controlled by the Metropolitan Meat Industry Board and the public may use that tip upon payment of a fee.

Air Safety (Question No. 326)

Senator Peter Baume:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Federation of Air Pilots make a request to the Department of Transport that the compulsory period between drinking and flying should be extended from 8 hours to 1 2 hours.
  2. Did the Department refuse the request. If so, why.
  3. Would the only result of such an extension be an increase in air safety.
  4. Will the Minister have the Department’s decision reviewed.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Federation of Air Pilots has not made a request that the compulsory period between drinking and flying be extended from 8 hours to 12 hours.
  2. Australian experience does not provide evidence that an extension would improve air safety.
  3. No requirement to review the decision has been demonstrated.

Oral Contraceptive: Sequilar50 (Question No. 332)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 16 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) When was application made by Schering Pty Limited to market a preparation called Sequilar50.
  2. 2 ) What stage has been reached in the assessment of this submission for marketing of this oral contraceptive agent.
  3. When is it anticipated that processing of the submission will be completed.
  4. How much time elapsed from the receipt of the submission and the beginning of assessment by an evaluator.
  5. If processing is incomplete, what stage has been reached at this moment.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 11 August 1976.
  2. ) The submission was referred to the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (ADEC) for allocation of priority in assessment on 8 October 1976 and after consideration by the ADEC and its Endocrinology Sub-committee, was allocated to the third of four priority categories. The third category comprises those drugs which may have a place on the market but offer no apparent advantage over already marketed products. In the opinion of the Committee such a classification was appropriate to this oral contraceptive product. The Sequilar 50 submission has thus not yet been passed to an evaluator for assessment.
  3. , (4) and (5) No indication can be given at this stage as to when evaluation will be completed. The ADEC has recognised that there are a number of much more important new drugs which represent significant additions to the therapeutic armamentarium in Australia to be evaluated before Sequilar 50. However, I can assure the honourable senator that the Sequilar 50 submission will be processed as early as possible consistent with the rather low priority given to it.

Unemployment Benefit: Eligibility of Queensland Farmers (Question No. 356)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 March 1 977:

Is a farmer, who is subject to a privileged valuation under the Queensland Valuation of Land Acts, eligible for unemployment benefit. If so, (a) what are the details, and (b) does a similar situation apply in other States.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

It is possible that a farmer whose property has been valued under the Queensland Valuation of Land Acts could be eligible for unemployment benefit. This is not a material factor in determining eligibility for unemployment benefit. The conditions of eligibility for primary producers for unemployment benefit in all States are: the farm property must be assessed as returning a net income lower than the applicable rate of unemployment benefit because of substantial reduction of income associated with a downturn in the industry or sector of the industry due to lower market returns or drought or other like factor. the primary producer must be able to scale down his own involvement in the activities on his property to the extent necessary to enable him to take full-time employment away from the farm. The producer may then be accepted as unemployed. For the purposes of the Social Services Act he cannot be regarded as unemployed if he is not prepared to take work away from the farm. the primary producer must be registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service. the primary producer must be available for, and actively seeking, full-time employment away from his property.

Police: Giving of False Evidence (Question No. 368)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for

Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

Is the Minister aware that Mr Don Lane, M.L.A., a member of the Queensland Parliament and former officer of the Queensland Police Force, in giving evidence on 24 January 1977, to the Criminal Law Inquiry in Queensland, stated that ‘verballing’, or the giving of false evidence to secure convictions, was practised to some extent by all Australian police forces, including the Commonwealth Police Force. If so, to what extent is ‘verballing’ practised within the Commonwealth Police Force.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I was not aware previously of this reported statement. Verballing is not practised within the Commonwealth Police Force.

Department of Social Security: Positions in South Australia (Question No. 369)

Senator Cameron:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for

Social Security, upon notice, on 23 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the claims made by ethnic groups in South Australia that (a) there has been at least 6 Government funded positions in the Department of Social Security which should have been filled by bilingual people which were not, and (b) this policy reduces the effectiveness of the programs involved.
  2. Has the Minister taken any action over this claim. If so. what action. If not. does this means that Government funds are not being put to the best use.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Some claims of this nature have been brought to my attention. The reference to the ‘six Government funded positions’ is not entirely clear, but it is thought that it may relate to positions funded under the Grant-in-Aid scheme for migrant welfare activities.

Until last year, the Grant-in-Aid scheme provided funds for the employment of qualified social workers only. I am informed that as the number of bi-lingual Social Workers available for employment in Adelaide is extremely limited, mono-lingual people with suitable experience are usually accepted for appointment to these positions.

  1. The rules of the Grant-in-Aid scheme have now been widened to permit the employment of welfare officers in addition to Social Workers and this development will broaden the scope for the employment of bi-lingual people with relevant experience. A number of agencies already have responded to this new development.

North-west Queensland and McArthur River Areas: Regional Study

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– On 15 March (Hansard page 123) Senator Robertson asked me, as the Acting Minister for the Northern Territory, a question without notice concerning the report of a regional study of the north-west Queensland and McArthur River areas. The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The consultant has not as yet presented the report of the regional study of the north west Queensland and McArthur River areas. Progress drafts submitted some months ago were the subject of consultations between Commonwealth and Queensland officers and the consultant. The questions of whether and when the report will be made public will be considered by the Commonwealth and Queensland governments after receipt and examination of the report.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 31 March 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19770331_senate_30_s72/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant