Senate
19 February 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1980

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1

RESIGNATION OF SENATOR THE HONOURABLE JAMES JOSEPH WEBSTER

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that, on 28 January 1980, 1 received a letter from Senator the Honourable James Joseph Webster resigning his place as a senator for the State of Victoria. In accordance with section 2 1 of the Constitution, I notified His Excellency the

Governor of the State of Victoria of a vacancy in the representation of that State caused by the resignation of Senator Webster.

page 1

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I inform the Senate of the recommendations that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made to His Excellency the Governor-General involving changes in ministerial arrangements on 7 December 1979. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the full details of the current Ministry.

Leave granted.

The details read as follows-

Senator CARRICK:

– I also inform the Senate that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) leaves Australia today for New Zealand to attend a meeting of Commonwealth and State housing Ministers. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay) will act as Minister for Housing and Construction until Mr Groom ‘s return on 23 February.

page 2

QUESTION

SENATOR DAME MARGARET GUILFOYLE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– With the indulgence of the Senate, I note with considerable pleasure that Her Majesty the Queen has conferred a very high honour on one of our number, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. She carries with her the warm thanks and congratulations of the Senate. We know that she will wear that high honour with merit and with dignity.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 2

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received from Senator Douglas Scott a letter dated 10

December 1979 resigning the office of Chairman of Committees consequent upon his appointment to the Ministry.

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That the Senate do now proceed to elect a Chairman of Committees.

Senator SCOTT:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations · NCP/NP

– I propose Senator Charles Ronald Maunsell to the Senate as its Chairman of Committees and move:

That Senator Charles Ronald Maunsell be appointed Chairman of Committees.

Senator Carrick:

– I second the motion.

Senator Maunsell:

– I submit myself to the will of the Senate.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I propose Senator James Anthony Mulvihill to the Senate as its Chairman of Committees and move:

That Senator James Anthony Mulvihill be appointed Chairman of Committees.

Senator Button:

– I second the motion.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I submit myself to the will of the Senate. I am inspired by the words of that

Mexican freedom fighter Zapata that it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

The PRESIDENT:

-There being two nominations, a ballot will now be taken.

Ring the bells.

The bells having been rung-

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate will now proceed to ballot. Ballot papers will be distributed to honourable senators each of whom is requested to write upon the paper the name of the candidate for whom he or she desires to vote. The ballot papers will now be distributed to all honourable senators. The candidates are Senator Maunsell and Senator Mulvihill.

A ballot having been taken-

The PRESIDENT:

– If all honourable senators have marked their ballot papers, I ask the Clerks to collect them. I invite Senator Douglas Scott and Senator Kenneth Wriedt to act as scrutineers.

The ballot having been counted-

The PRESIDENT:

– The result of the ballot is: Senator Maunsell, 35 votes; Senator Mulvihill, 25 votes. I therefore declare Senator Maunsell appointed as Chairman of Committees.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

-Mr President and honourable senators, I thank the Senate for electing me to this important post within the Parliament. I can assure honourable senators that to the best of my ability I will endeavour to uphold the standard set by my predecessors and particularly my immediate predecessor, Senator Scott. I will endeavour also to maintain the dignity and respect in which this chamber is held by the people of this country. I also thank Senator Mulvihill for giving me a run for my money. I have no doubt that one day his turn will come, if he stays here.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-I extend to Senator Maunsell my best wishes. The only advice that I give him is that he should apply the advantage rule and let the play proceed for as long as possible without blowing the whistle.

page 3

DEATH OF FORMER SENATORS AND MEMBER

The PRESIDENT:

– It is with deep regret that I have to inform the Senate of the death of two former senators and a former member of the House of Representatives. Stanley Kerin Amour, a senator for the State of New South Wales from 1938 to 1965, died on 29 November 1979. The Honourable James Allan Guy, C.B.E., a senator for the State of Tasmania from 1950 to 1956 and a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Bass from 1929 to 1934, and for the division of Wilmot from 1940 to 1946, died on 16 December 1979. Sir Winton George Turnbull, C.B.E., a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Wimmera from 1946 to 1949 and for the division of Mallee from 1949 to 1972, died on 14 January 1980.

I invite honourable senators to stand in silence as a mark of respect to the deceased.

Honourable senators having stood in their places

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank honourable senators.

page 3

PETITIONS

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator BUTTON:

-I present the following petition from 20 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:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Telecasts of Sports

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 238 citizens of Australia:

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

That it is acknowledged that it is reasonable for major sporting organisations to conclude agreements with individual commercial television networks for sole telecasting rights.

However, one of the functions which the ABC should be expected to perform on behalf of the Government is a service to enable ALL areas of Australia to receive telecasts of major events, irrespective of whether some parts of the country are serviced on that particular event by a commercial network.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Members should:

Direct that the ABC should:

Give priority to its role as a community service organisation in preference to its commercial interests.

On behalf of the Government, provide a community service to those areas not serviced by a commercial network so that directtelecasts of major events are transmitted to all Australians.

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 16 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled.

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth

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

We call on the government to

Continue to maintain the National Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Reform of Laws Relating to Sexual Offences

To the honourable the President and Members of Parliament assembled in the Senate, Canberra the humble petition of the undersigned members or organisations listed below and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That current laws relating to sexual offences against women are discriminatory against all women, and in particular against married women; and that current laws relating to sexual offences are ineffective and inadequate to protect married and unmarried women; and that we believe that both married and unmarried women should be effectively and adequately protected by law against sexual abuse.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That laws relating to sexual offences against women must be redefined to include all forms of sexual abuse against married and unmarried women, including all forms of coercionphysical, psychological, exploitative, extortionary and authority-based, and including sexual harrassment in any form, particularly at work and in educational institutions.

That evidence laws applicable generally to assault crimes must be acknowledged as applicable to sexual offences and the rules relating to corroboration in assault crimes must be made applicable to sexual offences.

That laws must be reformed so that accused persons are not entitled to abuse the criminal justice system; and furthermore laws must be revised to give greater protection to the victim and to minimise her distress.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the honourable President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled.

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth

Their support for and endorsement of the national women’s advisory council.

We call on the government to

Continue to maintain the national advisory council and increase federal government support for its activities.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Carrick, Douglas McClelland, Mulvihill, Puplick and Scott (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

Metric System

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. by Senators Watson and Withers.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth-

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Button, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Hamer and Missen.

Petitions received.

Human Rights Commission Bill 1979

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth-

That because we already inherit constitutional safeguards and many free institutions which assure to us as an unconditional right, the enjoyment of all basic human rights,

And because the exercise of our true common law rights is the proper means of dealing with attempted infringements or abuses of our human rights or personal freedoms within the Commonwealth of Australia and its territories,

And because the Human Rights Commission Bill 1979 would virtually eliminate our common law rights and heritage by substituting so-called rights and freedoms as defined under the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights of December 1 966, which does not correspond with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in fact deletes some of its essential safeguards,

We have the conviction that the above-mentioned Bill would in due time destroy much of our traditional liberties and rights and established system of law, remembering that it calls for all ‘the laws of the Commonwealth ‘ to conform to it, that we would be liable to the definitions, whims and decrees coming from a foreign source instead of our own sovereign, elected, constitutional parliamentary democracy, that the United Nations today is composed of a large majority of totalitarian-type States, and that the Bill must certainly result in a quickly expanding costly bureaucracy with wide and alarming powers of investigation and opinion-making.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia will withdraw, or repeal as the case may be, the Human Rights Commission Bill 1979 to protect the rightful interests of Australia and all Australians.

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

Petition received.

page 5

ACTS INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1 90 1 .

page 5

AMENDMENTS INCORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Amendments Incorporation Act 1 905.

page 5

STATUTORY RULES PUBLICATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Statutory Rules Publication Act 1903.

page 5

VIETNAM VETERANS: DISABILITIES

Notice of Motion

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

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

  1. The Senate expresses concern at the evidence of pathogenic effects following exposure of servicemen in Vietnam to agent orange and other defoliants; and

  2. 2 ) The Senate calls for-

    1. a review by the Administrative Review Council of all aspects of the administrative advice tendered to the Ministers for Veterans’ Affairs, Defence and Health on this subject;
    2. a clear and unequivocal assurance from the Government that servicemen thus affected will be fully compensated and that this compensation will include their wives and children; and
    3. an independent judicial inquiry which shall ascertain-
    1. the extent and range of disabilities incurred by Vietnam veterans and their dependants; and
    2. the effects of the continued use of these defoliants within Australia.

page 5

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 5

QUESTION

ANZUS PACT

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government. As the Prime Minister has stated on several occasions in recent weeks his great concern over the current international situation and the dangers facing Australia, is the Government able to assure the Australian people that there is no doubt that both Australia and the United States will honour their commitments to the ANZUS Pact?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My clear understanding, and that of the Government, is that the United States will honour its commitments to the ANZUS Pact, as Australia will do. The conversations between the American President and the Australian Prime Minister have strengthened the working defence bonds between the two countries.

page 5

QUESTION

OIL PRICING POLICY

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister for National Development and Energy relates to recent statements by the Minister concerning fuel pricing and the availability of cheap petrol. Can the Minister indicate whether the Government is considering the pricing situation in relation both to local needs and Australian production programs and what the results of those considerations might be? Is the Minister aware of the problems of rural communities in Australia as far as fuel price increases, particularly sharp increases, are concerned? Has the Government any plans for consideration which would assist rural people in relation to fuel costs for both transport and production?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-If I might take the middle part of the question first, that is whether the Government is aware of the impact of fuel prices on the rural community, the answer is an emphatic yes. The Government is aware of the total impact of freight costs on primary producers. It is aware that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of primary production costs are incurred off farm. It was with that in mind that the Government recently took the final step to implement fully its freight equalisation subsidy for oil to rural districts. Now, the difference in terms of cost has been reduced to 2c a gallon.

The important thing to keep in mind is not only the cost of the fuel but also the availability of it. Any policy on oil must recognise that in the world oil is a scarce and diminishing commodity and that oil in Australia is a scarce commodity and unless we drill more wells, conserve oil and find alternative fuels it will be a sharply diminishing commodity. The fact is that the import pricing carried out by the Australian Government provides to the Australian people the third cheapest oil, its by-products and gasolene in the world. Very soon, those products will be amongst the cheapest in the world.

The pricing policy is also working to conserve this commodity and provide alternative fuels. There is a switching from fuel oil to alternatives but, most significantly, alternatives such as oil shale, coal liquefaction, ethanol and methanol, which in the past have been priced out because of their high costs, are now moving towards competitiveness and therefore will be those kinds of supplies which will ensure that in the future farmers, as well as people in the cities, get oil. The important thing is that oil and all forms of energy should be supplied in the long term future.

Senator McLaren:

– It will be at least 10 years before it is available.

Senator CARRICK:

-To those who are interjecting let me simply say that the alternative policy of the Australian Labor Party would provide much dearer oil, and it would be scarcer.

page 6

QUESTION

ANZUS PACT

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to Senator Carrick and follows the one I asked concerning our commitments to ANZUS. I am sure that we are all reassured by his statement that the Government believes that both Australia and the United States of America would honour their commitments to that agreement. I ask whether the Minister has seen in the Australian of 2 February this year a report of an interview with the former head of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Nick Parkinson-who is now, of course, Australian Ambassador to Washington and, I think, could fairly be said to be Australia’s most senior diplomat- in which Mr Parkinson said:

After all, when it comes down to the sixty four dollar question, the big crunch- if the big balloon went up, the question must be whether the Americans would honour ANZUS.

As Mr Parkinson’s doubt is apparently not shared by the Australian Government, on what authority did Mr Parkinson make that comment? Can the Government ascertain what caused him to make it?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen the article. However I will look at it. As it was read to me, it does not seem to me that Mr Parkinson, as he then was, is challenging the value of ANZUS. He is saying that if the balloon goes up and there is world war the final test is the honouring of ANZUS. That does not mean that he doubts that ANZUS will be honoured. My understanding is that the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs to successive governments, including the previous Labor Government, has been and is that America would honour ANZUS. It does no good at all to the relationship between the two countries to arouse unnecessary suspicions at a time when it is clear that America and Australia will enter into much closer defence relationships, particularly in air and naval surveillance in the Indian Ocean. It seems to me an extraordinary attitude of mind of the Australian Labor Party that now, at a time of considerable peril in this world, it should raise unnecessary suspicions on the world scene when every indication is that that vital pact will be honoured.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask the Minister a supplementary question. I think it fair to suggest that anybody who read the statement of Mr Parkinson would have his doubts aroused. I think that on reflection after reading the Hansard Senator Carrick will believe that to be a factual statement. It is true that there is concern. For that very reason I ask him: Is it not appropriate that the Government clarify in this Parliament the statement that was made by if not its most senior then certainly one of its senior diplomats?

Senator CARRICK:

– Without detracting at all from my previous comments, I will refer the question and the supplementary question to my colleague in another place and ask him to review the matter and see whether he has anything to add.

page 6

QUESTION

OIL PRICING POLICY

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development and Energy. It is similar to Senator Davidson’s question but there is some variation. As the Government’s import parity oil pricing policy has increased oil exploration in Australia, decreased demand for oil and promoted use of other energy sources, it is of considerable benefit to the nation. However the outback and other isolated areas are facing rising transport costs, which are being reflected in increased prices for food and materials vital to their development. As a result of this policy natural gas costs have also risen considerably, creating higher costs for outback consumers, who do not benefit from gas reticulation schemes. In view of these facts, will the Government give urgent consideration to means of relieving the imbalance between costs in the city and those in isolated areas of Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-As Senator Kilgariff notes, there is considerable overlap between the question he has posed and the one asked by Senator Davidson and my answer to it. Quite clearly, very expensive actions such as freight equalisation are of enormous importance. There are two major jobs in Australia. One is to keep inflation down to a point where we can maintain competitiveness in world markets. We have now restored Australia to that position after the disaster of four years ago. That is now happening. We are now trading with the world in a better condition of competitiveness than we have in the past seven years. That position helps the outback as well as the city. The problem with natural gas is that as we seek to explore for more, of course, it will inevitably become dearer. But the Government is extremely concerned with the costs imposed on those in remote areas and it will take all practical steps to ease their burdens.

page 7

QUESTION

EXCHANGE SCHOLARSHIPS TO THE SOVIET UNION: CANCELLATION

Senator BUTTON:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the announcement of 13 February this year that the Government had cancelled the exchange scholarships to the Soviet Union of four Australian research students. Will the Minister please explain to the Senate just how these scholars’ deprivations will demonstrate to the people of the Soviet Union this country’s opposition to the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan? I ask this question in the light of the fact that on the same day the Minister for Trade and Resources said that a Russian wool buying mission would be granted visas to Australia without question.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is a pity that Senator Button has not read some of the statements made by his Labor leader, Mr Hayden, if he is his leader, because Mr Hayden has made it clear that messages that could get through to the Russian people as distinct from the Russian Government would be vital in a psychological approach. It is important that the Russian people understand that the world, comprising 104 nations as distinct from 18 communist nations- and perhaps the Labor Party; I am not sure- condemns what has happened in Afghanistan. So any action which can get the message through to the people will be vital. I will read what Mr Hayden said: the Labor Party believes that a boycott -

He is talking of the Olympic Games- supported by a majority of the countries . . . could be effective and could have a helpful psychological impact on the Soviets making it quite clear to them that their expansionary aspirations and behaviour will not be tolerated by the rest of the world.

I would have thought that any message which got through to the people of Russia would be supported by the Labor Party. I think I was asked about wool.

Senator Grimes:

– No, you were asked about students. Come on; answer the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I must ask Senator Grimes to cease interrupting. The Minister has the call.

Senator Grimes:

– We are only asking him to answer the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is enough.

Senator CARRICK:

-Mr President -

Senator Grimes:

– Take it off.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Grimes, you must not reject the directions of this Chair.

Senator CARRICK:

-I have said that the cancelling of the scholarships is one of a number of messages aimed to get through to the Russian people in terms of the kind of significant psychological impact -

Senator Grimes:

– Would not a ban on wool be more effective?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order, Senator Grimes!

Senator Grimes:

– It seems to me that I am singled out here.

The PRESIDENT:

– No. All honourable senators know that it is only reasonable when questions are asked that they should listen to the answers so that further questions can proceed without interruptions. There should be no contravention of Standing Orders by persistently rejecting the directions of the Chair.

Senator CARRICK:

– The aim of the Government is to get to the Russian people the message that 104 countries believe that what is happening in Afghanistan is a perilous threat to world peace. I would have thought that the Labor Party would want to be on the side of the 104 nations and not on that of the 18 communist nations which reject the idea.

Senator BUTTON:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Government and the Opposition share a common concern that there is no free Press in the Soviet Union, I again ask: How does the Minister expect the deprivation of four scholarships to persuade the Russian people that this country opposes the invasion of Afghanistan?

Senator CARRICK:

-Just the same as the world’s expression of its rejection of the actions against Sakharov and just the same as any of the gestures that we make. We hope that they will all add together to get a message to the Russian people.

Honourable senators:

Honourable senators interjecting-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Grimes:

– As long as it doesn’t cost your mates any money.

Senator Walsh:

– Would they notice if they didn’t get any wool?

The PRESIDENT:

– If honourable senators persist in interjecting when I am calling for order, I will name the culprits.

Senator CARRICK:

– I take it from the interjections by members of the Labor Party that if the Labor Party were in government today it would ban the export of wool to Russia; otherwise there would be no purpose at all in the honourable senators’ interjecting. I take it, in the absence of denial, that that is so.

Honourable senators:

Honourable senators interjecting-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The rules of this place must be obeyed. I call Senator Carrick.

Senator CARRICK:

-As to the question of the export of wool or other commodities, the Australian Government is, of course, in full support of the working arrangements that have been made under an understanding between the various countries. There is in existence a coordinating committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the United States of America and Japan. I hope, this time, that the Labor Party finds itself on the side of those countries; it will be rather lonely otherwise. I refer to the Co-ordinating Committee on Exports of Technology to Communist Countries. It looks not only to technology but also to strategic metals and matters of that nature. In no way has that co-ordinating committee looked towards raw materials such as wool and classified it as a war material. I presume, because of the interjections of the Labor Party- otherwise there would be no purpose -

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise on a point of order. The Minister is replying to a supplementary question. As I understand it, the supplementary question asked how, with the restrictions on the Press in Russia, the news of the stopping of passports to four research students would get to the common people in Russia.

The answer must relate to how that can be done. To refer to the intention of the Labor Party is no answer to the question of how the news of the banning of four students will get to the people of Russia. The mineral decisions -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! What is the point of order?

Senator Cavanagh:

– My point of order is that the Minister is not answering the question. I cannot see how knowledge of the banning or permitting of mineral exports from America will make the common people of Russia aware of the fact that four students from Australia were banned from travelling to Russia. Can we get the answer to the question?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator must not debate the matter. The Minister will give his reply to the question as he thinks fit.

Senator CARRICK:

-So that everyone will come back to square one, let me point out that there were two aspects to the question: One was the matter of exchange students and the other was whether Australia will continue to sell wool. In fact, in my reply I have responded to both aspects.

page 8

QUESTION

HUMAN RIGHTS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs studied the recently published report of the Amnesty International mission to Singapore with its horrifying details of long detention of prisoners without trial and of torture, forced confessions and ill-treatment in clear breach of international covenants? Is the Minister prepared to use our good relationship with the Singapore Government by making urgent representations to the Government of Singapore, in accordance with the report’s recommendations, seeking the release of prisoners held without trial for up to 17 years and the repeal of the Internal Security Act and other legislation depriving citizens of basic human rights, and requesting the taking of effective steps to prohibit the continuance of preventive detention, torture and other brutal and inhumane practices?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My attention has been drawn to the publication on, I think, 1 February this year of the report of an Amnesty International mission to Singapore from 30 November to 5 December 1978. The Australian Government accepts as a fundamental matter of principle that all detainees should be brought to public trial with as little delay as possible. This view has been communicated to the Singapore Government on a number of occasions. It is, however, difficult for a government to make effective representations on a governmenttogovernment basis on behalf of individual persons detained without trial.

Like most governments, the Singapore Government maintains that its law and its administration of it are internal matters falling entirely within its own sovereignty. The Singapore Government rejects the view that other governments have any right to interfere with the administration of Singapore law.

Senator Missen may not be aware that Mr Lee Tse Tong, one of the longest serving detainees, whose case was referred to in the Amnesty International report, was released conditionally on 14 February. Because this is an important question I will refer it to my colleague in another place.

page 9

QUESTION

DETENTE

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to a statement made by the Australian Prime Minister on a Los Angeles television program on 30 January that detente is dead. Who killed it? Has the Minister seen the comments by Mr UrsSchottli the Secretary-General of the Liberal International Organisation, which includes 30 Liberal organisations in Europe, that Europeans are shocked and frightened by Mr Fraser’s attitude to detente? Can the Minister indicate whether the Government has withdrawn its support for the principle of detente between nations?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The answer to the last part of the question is no. The only nation that has withdrawn its support for detente is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and that, I think, needs to be said firmly. Senator Gietzelt asked who killed detente. The answer is that the USSR killed it in Afghanistan, in Vietnam, in Angola, in Yemen and throughout the whole world by its bloody aggression, by its movement in immense rearmament and by its actual practical aggression.

I did not see the statement, but no single statement can outshout the voice of 104 nations, as against 1 8 nations, which said that what Russia had done in Afghanistan was threatening the peace and security of the world. In that situation how can any senator, even Senator Gietzelt, claim that detente is not dead, when one of the partners to detente is in fact crossing its borders aggressively with 85,000 troops, entering another country and dominating it? ‘Who killed detente’? The USSR did. I leave it to honourable senators to draw a conclusion as to on whose side Senator Geitzelt stands.

Senator GIETZELT:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the statement made by the Soviet Prime Minister, Mr Brezhnev, that detente should not be seen as a casualty in the current difficulty between his country and the rest of the world. Does the Government agree with that statement?

Senator CARRICK:

– The mote is in the eye of Mr Brezhnev and his country. If detente is to be restored the first thing that has to happen is that Mr Brezhnev has to withdraw his troops from Afghanistan and withdraw his support every day of slaughter of Kampucheans by the Vietnamese. Then of course there will be a possibility of detente. Apparently the only people who have to cease aggression and who are not to have any aggression at all are the non-communists in this world. Presumably the communists can get away with anything.

page 9

QUESTION

LAND USE TRIBUNAL FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. I refer to his response to the proposal of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory for the establishment of a land use tribunal, in which the Minister indicated that further consideration was being given to the proposal that would permit appeals on a range of land use issues to be made by the people of the Australian Capital Territory. I ask the Minister: What progress has been made on the matter and when might a decision be made concerning the establishment of a land use tribunal in the Australian Capital Territory?

Senator SCOTT:
NCP/NP

-I thank the honourable senator for his question. The Minister for the Capital Territory, in his recent statement tabled on 2 1 November 1 979, which was referred to by the honourable senator, announced the Government’s decisions in respect of the recommendations of the Joint Committee contained in its report on planning in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister indicated that, as recommended by the Committee, the Government had agreed that certain decisions relating to land use, planning and development would be reviewable. The Minister noted, however, that the Government wished to give consideration to the most appropriate avenue of appeal. The question has been referred to the Administrative Review Council. One matter for consideration by the Council is whether some or all of the proposed jurisdiction should be exercised by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, either directly or on appeal from the specialist tribunal. When the Administrative Review Council has reported the Government will give early attention to the Council ‘s view.

page 10

QUESTION

REGISTER OF BIRTH DEFECTS

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. More than a year ago undertakings were made by government to commence a register of birth defects so that the effect of chemicals such as the herbicide 2,4,5-T could be assessed honestly. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that, as reported in the Australian on 14 February, such a register has not been established? If so, why has it not been established and when will it be established?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

-I have no information on the matter for Senator Mason. I recall his earlier interest in the matter, but I will need to refer the question to the Minister for Health for an up-to-date answer. I am not aware of the comments reported in the newspaper, but I am sure that they will be drawn to the Minister’s attention. I will see what information can be given.

page 10

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE ACADEMY

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and relates to the proposed Australian Defence Force Academy. I ask whether the Minister is aware of the letter from Mr Peter Jones, the Western Australian Minister for Education, which appeared in the National Times of 12 January, wherein he stated:

At a time when the Federal Government, through the Tertiary Education Commission has established growth limits in both capital and recurrent expenditure within the university and advanced education sector, the commitment of more than S65m for such a purpose cannot be justified.

Will the Minister advocate a more responsible use of the taxpayers ‘ dollar in view of the proliferation of tertiary facilities in this country throughout the 1970s?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I saw the reported statement of the Western Australian Minister for Education criticising the expenditure of public funds in the creation of an Australian Defence Force Academy. I know that the Government has taken such comments and criticisms into account. The Government has had advice from many directions in the formation of that body and, both in its initial decision and upon review, has decided that in the longer term such an academy should be created. On balance, that should be so. The Government as yet has not decided upon the nature and structure of the Academy or upon the expenses involved. Because of the comments which Senator MacGibbon has made, I will refer his question to my colleague, the Minister for Education, in another place.

page 10

QUESTION

TRADE WITH THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS

Senator WALSH:

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry clarify policy on Government-imposed restrictions on grain sales to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Specifically, are all exports of coarse grain embargoed? Are all wheat sales or exports in excess of 2.26 million tonnes embargoed? For how long will these embargoes apply? What steps, if any, has the Government taken to ensure that grain sales to the USSR will not be laundered through third countries?

Senator SCOTT:
NCP/NP

-There are no embargoes on grain sales to the Soviet Union. The 2.26 million tonnes that have been contracted for are to be delivered by the end of July. The matter of further grain sales will be reviewed in about May of this year. The same situation applies to sales of coarse grain. The undertaking of the Government has been that it will not seek to sell grain to replace any of the 17 million tonnes of grain that has been withdrawn from the USSR by the United States of America.

Senator WALSH:

– I ask a supplementary question. Am 1 to understand that at the end of May the Government may lift all restrictions on grain sales to the Soviet Union? That seems to be what is implied in the Minister’s answer. If so, why has an authoritative announcement not been made by the Government that the restrictions on wheat sales and the complete embargo on coarse grain sales apply only to the end of May?

Senator SCOTT:

– The proposition is that the position is to be reviewed.

page 11

QUESTION

SOVIET OFFICIALS IN AUSTRALIA

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I preface it by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware of the New Zealand Government’s action in ordering a Russian Embassy official out of the country for supplying money to the New Zealand Communist Party. How many officers does Russia have at its Embassy in Australia? Does the Australian Government have means of detecting whether any money is supplied to any Australian groups for subversive purposes?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware of the action by the New Zealand Government in asking an official of the Russian Embassy to leave on the assertion that money had been given by the Embassy to someone in New Zealand. I cannot answer the two subsequent questions. I do not know how many Soviet officials are in Australia. Means of detection are matters that one does not normally discuss in this chamber. The Senate knows that all countries, including Australia, have intelligence systems available to give them information. I will refer the last two aspects of the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and see whether he wishes to add any further comment.

page 11

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Defence inform the Senate whether the Minister for Defence, who for the past four years has been justifying the defence White Paper on the basis of the doctrine of perceived threat to Australia, was at any time in those four years advised by the Prime Minister that this doctine was incorrect?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Defence.

page 11

QUESTION

WINE GRAPES

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of recent reports indicating that Australian wine drinkers are slowly changing their habits in the type of grape varieties consumed towards such varieties as Malbec, Cabernet and Pinot Noir? Is there a need for wine makers to have at their disposal grape plant stock of these varieties and other new varieties as they are developed, thus enabling them to experiment with blends which are palatable to Australian and overseas consumers? Since wineries are presently confronted with strict import laws in relation to grape plant varieties, will the Minister investigate the possibility of establishing a permanent gene repository for grape varieties in Australia similar to that in the United States? In this way new varieties could be kept permanently in line with overseas tastes, thus facilitating more rapid adjustments in line with consumer demand and improving Australia ‘s wine export potential.

Senator SCOTT:
NCP/NP

– I have a measure of interest in the wine drinking habits of Australians and, indeed, in matters that relate to the production of grapes and wines of various blending. The honourable senator’s question is too detailed for me to attempt to answer in this circumstance. I will refer it to the Minister responsible for detailed reply.

page 11

QUESTION

BOYCOTT OF MOSCOW OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Leader of the Government would know- he has mentioned it already- that Mr Hawke and the political Labor movement generally have roundly condemned the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, but they see the call by the Prime Minister for a boycott of the Moscow Games as purely an electioneering stunt. I refer to the letter that the Prime Minister sent to the Australian Olympic Federation on 23 January in which he said that one of the most telling things would be to have an effective boycott of the Games. Can the Minister now explain the current thinking of the Government as to what would be an effective boycott and state the details of it, and also inform the Senate whether that policy is firm and whether it will be a permanent boycott?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Bishop has referred to the Labor Party’s condemnation of the Russian intervention in Afghanistan. He then went on to suggest that the Government’s attempt to achieve a boycott is a political stunt. If that is so, it is fair to say that the majority of the governments in the world, as I understand it, are seeking to achieve a boycott of the Olympic Games. In due course that will be substantiated. Let me make this perfectly clear. I read to the Senate Mr Hayden ‘s statement that if a boycott could be achieved it would have a profound effect. Why is the Labor Party not trying to achieve that boycott? Why is the Labor Party now acting to try to destroy the boycott? Having said that it would have a profound effect upon the Russian people in getting a message over, it has taken two stands. It has said ‘Yes, but let us not get in first and try to rally nations; that would be a courageous thing to do. Let us be cowardly and stay aside’. Now it has gone further and said Let us try to destroy the boycott’. Nothing could be more despicable than the stance of the Labor Party at this moment on the Olympic Games, having identified clearly that an effective boycott would be a highly significant matter. What the Austraiian Government hopes to achieve, as indeed a majority of governments in this world hope to achieve, is a persuasion of their athletes that they should not go to the Games. In that way a message could get through to the people of Russia, clearer than any other message on earth, that the world condemns Russia’s military aggression, and by that boycott perhaps we could stop the killing in Afghanistan and perhaps we could stop the bloody murder. I think the bulk of the world is on the side of trying to achieve a boycott. Only Labor and those eighteen rather lonely nations which voted the wrong way in the United Nations are the other way inclined.

Senator BISHOP:

-Could I again ask the Leader of the Government to explain not only the course being considered, as mentioned in the Prime Minister’s statement to which I have referred and his letter to the Olympic Federation of Australia, but also the considerations by the Government of what is to be considered an effective boycott of the Games. Without all the rigmarole that the Leader of the Government has put up, would he please explain to the Senate what the Government now considers to be an effective boycott of the Games?

Senator CARRICK:

– The Government believes that it has first of all a duty to identify the desirability of that boycott and it, in good company, has identified that. It then says that it has another duty, which the Labor Party now seeks to subvert, and that is to persuade other nations to join the boycott.

Senator Grimes:

– But you are still taking their money.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Grimes:

– You are still taking their money.

Senator Walsh:

– Nothing has changed since the Ash Street days.

Senator Grimes:

– You still carry the bag around.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have called you to order persistently, Senator Grimes, asking you not to interject. I will not warn you again.

Senator CARRICK:

-So, the Government would view an effective boycott where a significant number of nations stayed away from the Games because those nations understood what that action meant. The Government conveyed to its athletes, as have some 37 nations that I believe can be identified now, the view of the Government that they ought not to go to the Olympic Games. I think it is very sad that the Labor Party is setting out to try to destroy a boycott, which it has identified would be an immense psychological step towards the achievement of peace.

page 12

QUESTION

SALVATION ARMY RED SHIELD APPEAL

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of the growing practice within the Australian Taxation Office of arbitrarily disallowing claims under section 78 of the Income Tax Assessment Act for donations of $2 and upwards to the Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal? Although this is an approved organisation, is the Treasurer aware that many taxpayers are not lodging objections because of the cost and time involved and that this practice is also prejudicing future donations to this highly worthwhile charity? Finally, will the Treasurer provide adequate instructions to the Taxation Office to remedy this situation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware that this is happening. If it is happening it would be an utterly wrong situation. Clearly donations of $2 and above to the Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal are tax deductible. I can say that personally as so many honourable senators would be able to say. If that is happening and if any proof can be given to me I will take that to the Treasurer and see that the matter is rectified on the spot. I, like the honourable senator, pay tribute to the magnificent work done by the Salvation Army throughout Australia.

page 12

QUESTION

AFGHANISTAN

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On 26 September last year, I asked him, among other things:

Does the Minister know whether there are any Soviet combat troops in Afghanistan? If there are Soviet combat troops in Afghanistan, does the Government have any views on this matter?

Senator Cavanagh:

– When was that?

Senator WHEELDON:

-That was on 26 September of last year. On 23 October, the Minister gave an answer which had been provided to him by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in which, among other things, he said that he had seen the reports to which I had referred. He continued:

Since the April 1978 coup in Afghanistan there has been a rapid and extensive build up of Soviet military and economic assistance to that country, and there are now some thousands of Soviet military and civilian advisers stationed there.

He went on to quote from his statement of 27 February last to the House of Representatives, in which he said that the Government was concerned about instability in Afghanistan in the West Asian region. He said:

The Government is opposed to the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan and concerned at the implications for the security and stability of the region.

In view of the fact that the Minister said in October last year that the Government was concerned about the presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan, what course of action did that concern lead it to take? Were there negotiations with other countries friendly to Australia about the presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan? Were any further inquiries made about the nature of Soviet activities in Afghanistan? Were any representations made to the Soviet Government protesting about the presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan? Or is it the fact, as it may well appear, that the Government was caught flatfooted by what subsequently happened?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In the events subsequent to that answer in October the people of Afghanistan were caught flat-footed by five Russian motorised divisions. The fact is that the only people caught flat-footed were those caught by the subsequent massive invasion of military divisions. I remember the question; it was a very good and proper question. I respect Senator Wheeldon ‘s understanding of and interest in foreign affairs. I believe that the answer given in late October by my colleague in another place was an answer very much pertinent and impeccable in regard to the evidence then available.

Subsequently there was a military invasion. It was because of that invasion that in recent weeks the world reacted. After all, it was not until January that 104 member nations of the United Nations saw fit, however belatedly, to act. I am unable to say what diplomatic steps the Government took in the interim period, but I will refer that section of the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek an answer.

page 13

QUESTION

SOUND RECORDING ROYALTIES

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– My question to the Attorney-General relates to the Australian record industry and the recent Copyright Tribunal recommendations to increase record royalties. Is the Minister aware that, according to the Australian Record Industry Association, the serious effects of those recommendations, if agreed to, will bear on the Australian record industry and local artists and composers, with benefits in the main going to overseas publishers and composers?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I have received the report of the Copyright Tribunal in regard to record royalties. The recommendation is that royalties be increased. That recommendation has been made to me. It is not a decision as such, although the tribunal that considered the matter is a quasi judicial tribunal. The Copyright Tribunal heard a lot of evidence and gave the matter a great deal of thought, which is apparent from the nature of the report. However, as Senator Archer has indicated, concern about the recommendation has been expressed by the Australian Record Industry Association.

The other day I received a deputation from the President of the Association, another senior member of it and its legal advisers. They put to me very clearly and very forcibly their views. I also expect to receive views from other parties in the proceedings. At this stage I am considering the report of the Tribunal and the views that have been put to me. I am not yet in a position to make any recommendation to the Government in relation to the Tribunal ‘s recommendations.

page 13

QUESTION

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: WORLD STABILITY

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind him that the Prime Minister, speaking on station KNBC4 Los Angeles on 30 January- one of his few media appearances in the United States- stated: ‘Detente is dead’. I remind the Leader of the Government of his own apparent affirmation of that proposition in his earlier answer today to Senator Gietzelt. As Senator Carrick represents both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I ask him how this statement that detente is dead can be equated with the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald of 29 January, which says:

Australia did not see the issue in cold war or East- West terms but in the effect on world stability.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In the previous question I was asked who killed detente. I said that Russia did, by its aggression. Detente is achieved only if the two parties to it are non-aggressive and pursue a path of peace. The fact is that Russia has pursued a path of war, both in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I am not aware of the other statement. Senator Evans must be aware of the whole series of statements by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation military and civil leaders who have said that detente was being destroyed by the actions of Russia in building both its nuclear and conventional armaments. There is no doubt in the wide, wide world that in the year prior to intervention in Afghanistan the Western world had expressed the views that detente was threatened and likely to die because of Russia’s actions in building the largest and most threatening military force in the world. Subsequently, there has been actual aggression against a non-aligned neighbouring country. I do not think there is any need to amplify the statement but I am prepared to ask my colleague in another place to look at the statement quoted from the Press and, if there is a need to comment, I will ask him to do so.

page 14

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. As the Minister representing the Minister in charge of sport in Australia is he aware whether it is a fact that the International Olympic Federation, during a period when it was proclaiming that it would not accept any proposed change in the venue for the Olympic Games because it was not involved in politics but only in sport, was at the same time rejecting the team which had turned up at Lake Placid to participate in the Winter Olympics on behalf of Taiwan? Is it a further fact that no team from South Africa is permitted to participate? In both cases is the reason based on a political view rather than a view that it should be open to all to compete in the Olympic Games?

Senator SCOTT:
NCP/NP

– I have not seen the statement referred to by Senator Rae, but I have no doubt that it is as he reports it to be. If indeed the International Olympic Federation has taken that stance, it appears to me that there is significant inconsistency in its approach. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Home Affairs to see whether he has any remarks to add.

page 14

QUESTION

TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENTS

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister will be aware of the magnitude of technology and equipment procurements by the Soviet Union from Western multinationals based on buy-back and counterpurchase agreements. Is he aware of the detailed study which has been made by the Secretary of the International Federation of Chemical Energy and General Workers Union, Mr Charles Levinson, on these operations, which he has dubbed ‘ vodka cola ‘ operations?

Is the Minister aware that such operations are based on the desire for expansive profits by the multinationals and on the exploitation by the

Kremlin of the Soviet workers? Is he aware also that extended synthetic fibre capacity in the Soviet Union is a proximate danger to many thousands of workers in this country and in the long term to the wool industry? Given the need for a co-ordinated and effective response to the expansion of Soviet imperialism, what actions have the free democracies taken in a coordinated fashion to deny to the Kremlin the very technology and expertise which it is using to crush its own peoples and to expand its imperialism? When Mr Ohira, the Prime Minister of Japan, was here was this subject raised with him? If so, with what result?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Earlier I referred to the fact that there is a body called COCOM, the Coordinating Committee on Exports of Technology to Communist Countries. On that Committee are represented the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries, the United States of America and Japan. Basically its job is to look at the questions of technology and strategic materials. In view of the events in Afghanistan the terms of reference of that body are being reviewed. I can comment on that. But Senator Harradine asks a series of questions, which I think are significant, that require more specific knowledge than I have. I will refer them to my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and seek his reply.

page 14

QUESTION

HEALTH TAX STAMP

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether the Government is considering the introduction of a health tax stamp, of say 2c, on each packet of cigarettes as a means of raising funds for medical research, an action I believe would have wide community acceptance.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

-I have not heard of the matter raised by Senator Walters. I have no knowledge that would enable me to say that the Government is considering the introduction of a health tax stamp. I would need to refer the matter to the Minister for Health for his advice, and I will see that Senator Walters is advised accordingly.

page 14

QUESTION

RD7LES: EXPORT TO RUSSIA

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. As the Bureau of Statistics has advised that Australia exported 16,017 rifles to Russia during the year 1977-78, I ask whether any rifles have been exported to Russia in subsequent years. Are any to be exported this year? Has the Government considered placing a ban on exports such as rifles to Russia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that the export referred to was a return of rifles of a non-military kind that had previously been imported from Russia. There is no import or trade between the two countries of military-type weapons at all. I repeat that my understanding is that, in fact, these rifles were imported from Russia as non-military rifles and that they have been returned to Russia.

page 15

QUESTION

BUTTER

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is to the Minister for Special Trade Representations who is also the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask whether the Minister is aware that Australian exporters of butter are trying to locate supplies from other countries because the Australian Dairy Corporation will not release any bulk butter for export at the moment. Does the Minister agree that once again there is a fundamental distortion of natural market forces, this time brought about by the equalisation scheme, to the detriment of” our international trade?

Senator SCOTT:
NCP/NP

– One of the prime functions of the Australian Dairy Corporation is to ensure adequate supplies of dairy products for the domestic market. To achieve this objective the ADC makes periodic assessments of likely Australian production of milk and the output of major dairy products. If the ADC considered that domestic supplies were threatened it could suspend the issue of export permits. During the current season, however, the ADC has not declined to issue export permits for butter where the exporter has been able to show that he has product available to meet export orders. I am informed that some exporters are having difficulty in obtaining supplies to meet all export demand. This position reflects the restructuring which has taken place in the industry as manufacturers have adjusted their product mix to ensure the most profitable return. As a consequence a substantial decline has occurred in butter production.

The ADC does not have the power to direct manufacturers to whom they should sell butter as this is a matter for commercial negotiation. Similarly, the ADC does not regulate the form in which butter is exported. Provided the minimum return set by the ADC is paid to the export pool, the exporter can decide whether the exports should be in the form of bulk, tinned or pat butter or ghee. I do not agree with the honourable senator that these arrangements in any way distort natural market forces. As I have indicated, traders with butter available for export are free to determine their own export arrangements subject to their meeting minimum export pool requirements.

page 15

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. He may be aware of a scare which occurred last Saturday in Sydney when a container of radioactive material was reported to be missing. A spokesman for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission attacked this report as alarmist although the facts that were reported by the Age newspaper were correct. It seems as though Australia has a very slipshod way of transporting radioactive material. I ask the Minister: Why did it take the authorities so long to discover that only four cylinders of radioactive material had been in a shipment from Qantas Airways Ltd and not five as the truck driver had thought? In the meantime police were searching for the supposed missing cylinder and Sydney radio stations were warning people to keep children off the streets and not to approach any cylinder as it might contain radioactive material. Will the Minister have a thorough investigation made into this very slipshod manner of handling radioactive material?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The facts, of course, as I now reveal them, show that there was nothing slipshod at all and that the driver concerned acted in the best of his belief to see that nothing of any harm could happen. He thought that something was missing because he did not count a drum on his truck as a fifth item. In fact, nothing was missing at all. Anyone can make scares out of these things.

The facts are that a shipment of four containers and one drum was collected by an Australian Atomic Energy Commission driver from Mascot and taken to Lucas Heights. When the driver unloaded his truck he found the tailgate unlocked. He checked his load which was identified in accordance with the international regulation for carriage of radioactive materials with the consignee’s name and address, which was the Atomic Energy Commission, and the notations ‘package one of five’, ‘package two of five’, ‘package three of five’, et cetera. The driver overlooked the fact that the drum was one of the packages and thought he had lost a package en route. The driver alerted the police to the possibility of one of the smaller packages being lost but verification of the documentation confirmed that the drum still on the truck was in fact the fifth package. I believe that there were no slipshod measures. I believe the driver acted very responsibly in these matters and there was no threat at all to the Australian public.

page 16

AFGHANISTAN-AUSTRALIA’S ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement relating to Australia’s assessment and response to the situation in Afghanistan and to move a motion in relation to that statement.

Leave granted.

Senator CARRICK:

-In the first weeks of 1 980 the world is facing probably its most dangerous international crisis since World War II. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) expressed that view before leaving for the United States and Europe. What he heard on those visits strongly confirms it. Some senators may be interested to know that Willy Brandt, one of the principal architects of the policy of detente, speaking on behalf of the socialist group in the European Parliament, has expressed the same opinion. The situation really is extremely serious and it does no service to this country or to the cause of international peace to try to dismiss or trivialise it in terms of domestic election politics or Cold War stereotypes.

The present crisis shares all the ingredients of earlier ones. But it has two additional dimensions. Firstly, it threatens the world’s supply of oil, and oil is the life-blood of modern society. Secondly, it occurs at a time when the Soviet Union has for the first time achieved nuclear parity, while retaining- indeed increasing- its superiority in conventional arms. In my view it is imperative that countries which value their own independence and world peace should respond to this crisis with firmness and in a sustained way. If they do not, the prospects for the 1980s will be bleak.

The crisis has come about because, and only because, in the last week of 1979 the Soviet Union sent thousands of its troops across the border into Afghanistan. Since then it has continued to put men and arms into that country until today there are something in the order of 85,000 Russian troops there- over twice as many men as there now are in the disintegrating Afghan army. There is no indication that they will be withdrawn in the foreseeable future. In the English language the accepted and proper words for this kind of action are not interference or intervention but invasion, occupation and suppression.

The Soviet Union is engaged in propping up an unstable and unpopular Marxist regime, which is internally divided and which is bitterly opposed by the people of Afghanistan. To say that it has acted, and is acting, brutally is not to engage in rhetoric. It is merely to describe the facts. When in the Second World War the Nazis wiped out the whole male population of the Czechoslovakian village of Lidice- some 400-500 men- in reprisal for the assassination of Heydrich, the whole civilised world recoiled in horror. Now it is reported, on evidence provided by the women and children who survived, that well over twice that number were murdered in cold blood, and under Russian supervision, in the Afghan village of Kerela. There are already 500,000 refugees in Pakistan, people who have found conditions intolerable in their own country. It is feared that the number could quickly rise to one million.

The Nature of the Crisis

This is not the first occasion on which the Soviet Union has used armed force to crush the aspirations of a people. We have the examples of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 before us. Indeed, the Gulag Archipelago, and the recent banishment of Sakharov, are reminders that it is the aspirations not only of other peoples but also of the Russian people themselves that suffer. But there are elements in the Afghanistan situation which make it qualitatively different in terms of its implications for world order.

Firstly, although Afghanistan had had a Marxist government since 1978, it was not a part of the Soviet bloc but a member of the nonaligned movement and of the Islamic Conference. Its invasion by the Soviet army marks the first direct and massive use of Russian forces against a non-aligned country. Since the beginning of the Cold War nearly 35 years ago, the Soviet Union has consistently sought to extend its influence in Third World countries by supporting insurrections and by the infiltration of existing governments, as well as by the more legitimate means of exploiting its ideological appeal and the giving of aid. But as long as the United States had decisive nuclear superiority it did not resort to the direct use of force against them. Now, after achieving nuclear parity, it has felt able to do so.

Secondly, what we have seen in the last weeks is the thrust of the most powerful land army in the world into one of the most sensitive strategic areas in the world. Afghanistan is not strategically peripheral or inconsequential. It occupies a pivotal role, historically recognised in the long contest for influence between Britain and Russia. Afghanistan controls the gateways into the Indian subcontinent. In recent years its importance has been increased immeasurably because of its proximity to the world’s main supply of oil. Currently, the situation across the border in Iran has made it more sensitive than ever. Given these considerations, the Soviet move into Afghanistan could not but have the most profound implications for the stability of global order.

Thirdly, the Soviet action occurred at a time when the United States and its Western alliesand supposedly the Soviet Union itself- were committed to a policy of detente. There was no provocation. On the contrary, it came in a period when the United States was showing great restraint, not only in its general policy but also in responding to the holding of American hostages in Iran. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Soviet Union mistook that restraint for weakness and treated it with contempt.

The crisis needs to be seen not only in a strategic perspective but also in an historical one. For 20 yeats after the Second World War the world lived in that acute state of tension known as the Cold War. The Cold War was neither sought nor desired by the countries of the West. In 1945 their concern was to demobilise and return to normal peacetime life. That concern was frustrated by a series of Soviet actions which demanded a response: Pressure on Greece, Turkey and Iran; the progressive satillisation of Eastern Europe; the Berlin blockade.

From the beginning of the Cold War there was a persistent and deepset longing in the West to escape from its strains and tensions, and from the ever-present threat of nuclear war it presented. That longing found expression in a succession of phrases such as ‘relaxation of tension’, ‘disengagement’, ‘coexistence’ and, latterly, ‘detente’. All these terms had two things in common: They were ambiguous, capable of different interpretations; and they represented less a realistic appraisal of what was possible than the wish to be free of the harsh logic of the Cold War and the burden of responsibility which it imposed.

Both these characteristics have been systematically exploited by the Soviet Union. As far as detente is concerned, in 1972 the Soviet Union signed, with the United States, a document of basic principles’ which was supposed to define the ground-rules of a new kind of relationship between them. These principles affirmed the importance of avoiding confrontation; the need for mutual restraint; the rejection of attempts to exploit tensions in other areas to gain unilateral advantages; the renunciation of claims to special privileges by either country in any region; and the willingness to strive for a more constructive long-term relationship. The United States interpreted these principles widely and as having universal application. The Soviet Union on the other hand interpreted them narrowly as applying only to direct super and great power relations.

The Soviet Union generally respected the rules of detente only in its direct dealings with the United States and Europe, but not in its dealings in or with the Third World. There is pursued a policy of unbridled competition and opportunism. As early as 1973 it violated the letter and spirit of detente in the Middle East war by refusing to show any restraint in resupplying the belligerents, and by urging non-belligerents to join the war. In 1975 it intervened in the Angolan civil war, both with arms and through its Cuban surrogates. In late 1977, it intervened in the Ethiopian civil war with arms, ‘instructors’ and Cuban troops. Throughout black Africa it changed the character of local conflicts by injecting a massive quantity of sophisticated weapons.

It has exerted a destabilising influence in the relationship between North and South Yemen. And, of particular concern to Australia, it is currently subsidising Vietnam to the tune of $3m a day while that country conducts its aggression against Kampuchea. At the same time as it has been engaging in all these activities- all in countries far outside its traditional sphere of influence and activity- the Soviet Union has felt able to contribute only some 3 per cent of the total nonmilitary aid to the Third World.

It will be clear from this record that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did not mark a sudden departure from its previous record of behaviour; a qualitative change, yes, but one within an established pattern of behaviour. The truth is that during what was known as the period of detente in the 1970s, the Soviet Union made use of its ground-rules with the United States in order to be extremely active- in military terms more active than it had ever been before- in pursuing its interests in the Third World. As I have said, during the same period the United States was operating in terms of a more restricted concept of its role in the Third World than at any time in the previous quarter century.

Motives and Consequences

Why did the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan? The explanation of its own leaders is that it responded to the request of the Government of Afghanistan and that there was already interference in the country by other powers. As to the first part of this explanation, in light of the fact that the Soviets went into the country days before they claim to have received the request, and then promptly killed the head of the Government which had supposedly invited them in, it is insultingly unconvincing.

Indeed the fate suffered over the years by those leaders who have allegedly invited the intervention of the Soviet Union in their affairs is such that one must conclude that no sane person would extend such an invitation. As to the second claim, in the face of the almost universal condemnation the Soviet Union has received, we can be sure that if there were any good evidence of prior intervention of any serious kind in Afghanistan’s affairs by other countries it would have been produced long ago. No such evidence has been advanced.

Some commentators have placed heavy emphasis on the defensive concerns of the Soviet leadership in relation to Afghanistan, its worry about the possibility of the collapse of the Marxist regime there and the spread of internal fighting or of Islamic revivalism. I do not discount these elements. They are part- perhaps an important part- of the picture.

But they are certainly not the whole picture. Given the Soviet’s huge, sustained military build-up over recent years- involving about 13 per cent of its gross national product- at a time when the military expenditure of the United States was declining in real terms; and given its recent record in respect of Angola, Ethiopia, the Yemeni Republics and Indo-China, the image of a conservative and defensive Soviet Union acting only from fear and concern rings false. It would certainly have calculated the positive strategic and political advantages of acting as well as the adverse consequences of not acting.

In any case we should not be hypnotised by speculation about possible motives. It is more to the point to consider consequences. Russian military power is now 250 miles closer to the Gulf than it was two months ago. It is now within 300 miles of the Straits of Hormuz, the choke-point through which the bulk of the world’s oil supply must move. The Soviet Union has acquired a border of over 1 ,300 miles with Pakistan.

It is a maxim of strategy that a Une of advance which offers alternative objectives should always be sought. In invading Afghanistan the Soviet Union has followed that maxim; it is now so placed that if and when it wishes it can exert pressure on the Gulf oil states to the west, on the Indian sub-continent to the east or towards the Indian Ocean to the south. Whatever its original motives, the consequences go far beyond the stabilisation of a local situation and have global significance. They can themselves create new motives for further action.

World Reactions

The costs of the invasion of Afghanistan in human terms and in terms of world order have been high. To be set against that is the fact that the Soviet action has had the effect of destroying complacency and introducing a new sense of reality and urgency into perceptions of the current international situation both in the West and the Third World.

The fact that 104 countries, most of then nonaligned, voted in the United Nations General Assembly to condemn the Soviet action clearly reflected that change. So did the resolutions passed by the extraordinary session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers at the end of January, which- again- condemned the Soviet action as military aggression, demanded the immediate and total withdrawal of Soviet troops and suspended Afghanistan from membership of the Islamic Conference. President Carter’s State of the Union message gave eloquent expression to the new mood, all the more effectively because it came from someone who has been prepared to test to the limit the genuineness of the Soviet commitment to detente.

In Europe, the President of France and the West German Chancellor have issued a joint declaration calling for an end of Soviet military intervention, asserting that the present crisis ‘is of a kind which could set in motion a process which, step by step, and whatever intentions might be, could have the gravest consequences for the world ‘, and reaffirming their commitment to the Atlantic Alliance. Whatever doubts may have been expressed by commentators about where the major European countries stand, and whatever hopes the Soviet Union may have entertained about driving a wedge between them and the United States, should have been removed by that statement.

The visits the Prime Minister has just made to four of the major western countries and the Foreign Minister has made to seven countries in South and South East Asia have given the Government an opportunity to sound out opinions in greater depth. I can assure you that there is no element of bluff or hyperbole in the public statements of those leaders the Prime Minister talked to. They are in deadly earnest. Similarly, the Foreign Minister came back from his Asian mission deeply impressed by the impact which the invasion has had in the region and the evident concern about its implications for the national independence of Third World countries.

Whatever differences of perspective there may be on particular aspects, and they do exist, opposition to what the Soviet Union has done, a profound disquiet about its possible consequences and a belief that it must be met with resolution, are virtually universal outside the Soviet bloc. Indeed, even within that bloc, it is perfectly clear that there is deep concern and apprehension among the more independent-minded communist states.

The fact that India is concerned about the prospect of military support for Pakistan does not mean that she is unconcerned about the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The fact that some Western European countries have their own views about the appropriate ways of responding to the Soviet Union does not mean that their condemnation is in any way muted or qualified. The fact that some of the Islamic countries disagree with aspects of United States policy in the Middle East and West Asia does not mean that they are tolerant of Soviet aggression against one of their own.

Those who maintain that what we are witnessing is a return to the Cold War should bear all this in mind. The essence of the Cold War was its bipolar character The conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union and the degree of leadership and control they exerted within their respective spheres. The essence of the present situation is that condemnation is coming independently and unorchestrated from a diversity of sources- from the Third World, from the non-aligned, from the Islamic countries, as well as from the developed countries of the West.

That having been said, it must also be said that moral and political condemnation, important though it is, is not enough. It is not in itself a policy. Experience in earlier crises has shown that the attention span of world opinion is limited and that what is initially regarded as outrageous can quite quickly become acceptable, if only in a spirit of resignation. If that happens in this case, if the lesson which the Soviet Union is allowed to draw is that all it has to do is to sit tight and allow the storm of protest to blow itself out, the consequence will be disastrous.

The first thing which must be done is to demonstrate in convincing fashion, and beyond any doubt, that the will and resolve to meet the new challenge exist. This is particularly important in the case of the United States, not only because of its indispensable leadership role but becauseand to say this is only to state the obvious- the twin traumas of Vietnam and Watergate have undermined the credibility of American resolve in recent years. It is also important in the case of the Western European democracies, for some of their recent actions and attitudes have created an image of an inward-turning Europe and doubts about their readiness to play a global role. The firm, measured tone of President Carter’s State of the Union message, and the joint declaration issued by President Giscard and Chancellor Schmidt, have done much to restore the credibility of that resolve. We must now build on this foundation. The resolve expressed must be translated into effective policies by all of us.

It is important that there be clarity about the aims of those policies. Their purpose should not be to outlaw or humiliate the Soviet Union. The existence of the Soviet Union is a fact we have to live with. What these policies must do is to make it clear to the Soviet Union that if it persists in its occupation of Afghanistan or engages in any other expansionist moves the cost will be prohibitive. They must make it clear that as far as detente is concerned, the Soviet Union cannot both have its cake and eat it; it cannot enjoy the benefits while ignoring the responsibilities; and it cannot behave as if the relevance of detente ceases on the borders of the Third World. This, after all, should impose no hardship on the Soviet Union. It claims to be the friend and supporter of the Third World- why then should it not extend to those countries the code of behavious it is prepared to adopt in its relations with developed Western countries? Why should it persist in discriminating against them? Lastly, these policies must disabuse the Soviet Union that the course of trying to divide the Western allies is a profitable one to pursue.

The policies will be successful insofar as they signal these messages clearly and unambiguously to the Soviet Union, so that there can be no basis for miscalculation or confusion on its part. Far from breaking, off communications, we must improve them. It has to be said that in the recent past the signals sent by the West have not always been clear and consistent. That is dangerous. It is vital that the Soviet Union should understand clearly the choices facing it and the consequences of the decisions it makes in relation to them.

Immediate policy decisions

Immediate short-term policies to meet the crisis have already begun to take shape. They are based largely on the recognition of the fact that whilst the Soviet Union is a super-power, it is an unbalanced one whose economic and technological development does not match its military strength. It needs access to Western grain, Western technology and Western credits. It was part of the implicit bargain of detente that such access would be available in return for restraint in international affairs; but it was also implicit that, conversely, if restraint was not shown that access would suffer. Significant measures have therefore been taken to limit access while the Soviet Union persists on its present course.

The other immediate means available to impose a cost on the Soviet Union is through the Olympic Games. Thirty-five governments of countries in Europe, Africa, Asia, the Pacific, the Caribbean, Latin America and North America have said that they are in favour of a boycott of the Moscow Games if Soviet troops are not withdrawn from Afghanistan. Those 35 countries include, in our own area, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore. A number of other countries, including most of those attending the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, have indicated that they are considering a boycott.

As honourable senators know, the Australian Government is strongly of the view that it would not be in the national interest of Australia, or in the interest of world order, for Australia to participate in Games held in Moscow. The Government therefore asks that, in the event of the Soviet Union not withdrawing from Afghanistan, no Australian team be sent to Moscow.

This is not a step to be taken lightly or happily, least of all by a country such as Australia which has had a distinguished record of participation in the Gaines. I am very well aware of the sacrifice it would entail for the athletes involved. I now pledge that my Government will do all it can to promote and support the organising of a site for alternative international games at which our athletes can participate. We are already active in this respect.

I want the reasoning behind the Government’s position on this matter to be clearly understood. First, we believe that it is wrong that a country which is engaged in the invasion, occupation and suppression of a people should be regarded as a fit host for the Olympic Games. Unless the importance of holding the Games is regarded as an overriding imperative which takes precedence over all other considerations, this seems indisputable- for one can hardly think of a more serious violation of international friendship. Yet, if it holds as a general principle, why should it not be applied in the case of the Soviet Union? Is it that the invasion of Afghanistan is not a sufficient invasion, that Afghanistan and its people are too unimportant to apply the principle that the Soviet Union has not deployed enough troops to give sufficient cause; or does anyone argue that the Games are of such importance that they should be held in the allocated country however extreme and outrageous the behaviour of the prospective host?

Secondly, on the question of mixing sport and politics, it is absolutely clear that the Soviet Union is already doing this in the most systematic and blatant way. The Soviet Government would represent the participation of Australian and other athletes as a political triumph for itself. Indeed, in an official party document, it is already claiming the holding of the Games in Moscow as ‘convincing proof of the universal recognition of the historical importance and correctness of the course of our country’s foreign policy, the vast contribution of the Soviet Union to the struggle for peace’. It is thus the Soviet Union which is insisting, not just on mixing sport and politics, but that sport- like every other aspect of life- is politics. Whatever the intentions of our athletes, their presence in Moscow would be used politically by the Soviet Union.

In our dealings with South Africa we have recognised that because that country insists on treating sport politically, it is impossible for others to divorce politics from sporting matters; and we have acted accordingly with respect to our sporting contacts with that country. I ask those who accept that argument in the case of South Africa to recognise that it applies equally in the case of the Soviet Union. To do otherwise would be to apply the crudest of double standards.

Thirdly, the crucial consideration in deciding what action to take in response to the Soviet invasion must be the effectiveness of that action in terms of its impact on the Soviet Union. There is no point in incurring costs for Australia by action that would have little or no impact on the Soviet Union. In other circumstances, that is if the Olympic Games were not scheduled to be held in Moscow this year, Australian athletes would have remained unaffected by our response to Afghanistan. It is only the fact that all the advice we have received indicates that the moving, cancellation or boycotting of the Games would be the most effective way of bringing home to the Soviet Government, and even more to the Russian people, the consequence of the invasion of Afghanistan, that has caused us to take the position we have.

The Long-Term Needs

As well as these immediate measures and of greater importance long-term policies to match Soviet power and staying-power must be formulated. An indispensable element in that process must be the redressing of the trend in the military balance. Diverting large amounts of money to arms is not something which democratic societies welcome, least of all when doing so is bound to increase already serious inflationary pressures. But as long as the Soviet Union persists in diverting around 13 per cent of its gross national product to increasing its already excessive military power there is no real choice.

In this, as in other aspects, the main burden must fall on the United States. President Carter has already announced a series of measures which will strengthen the armed forces of the United States and, what is also very important, will increase their flexibility and their capacity to respond quickly to crises. But if the main burden falls on America, it is entitled to look for supporting measures in other countries that value their independence and the maintenance of world order. Other developed countries, including Australia, must respond. In this respect the recent decision to modernise and strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s theatre nuclear weapon systems is important. This decision is very unwelcome to the Soviet Union, but it should realise that it is its own uninhibited arms build-up which has brought it about.

A second aspect of long term policy making must be the strengthening of the Western alliance. More than ever, an effective system of continuous and close consultation among the major Western powers is indispensable, not only in relation to Europe but to the policy towards the Third World. I have good grounds for believing that such a system would be welcome to European governments and that they would respond very positively to it. I also believe that the United States, which has had to shoulder immense responsibilities of leadership in recent decades, would be reassured and strengthened by such a move. In dealing with the Soviet Union it would go far towards ensuring that the signals that country received were consistent and unambiguous.

A third aspect which must be kept in mind is that, unless there is a radical change in Soviet behaviour, the main area of danger in the 1980s is likely to be not the European theatre but in the grey areas of the Third World. In the past, wars have started in Europe and have subsequently drawn in other countries of the world. But in the last 35 years the lines have been firmly drawn in Europe and convincing commitments made. The danger now is that wars may start in the strategically undefined zones of the Third World and draw in the rest of the world. This danger is most acute in the Middle East because of the crucial dependence of European countries- and of Japan to an even greater extent- on Middle East oil. Given the importance of oil to developed industrial societies, this factor introduces a new element in the strategic picture and its importance can hardly be over-emphasised.

It is therefore essential that Western countries formulate coherent policies in relation to the Third World. The Australian Government has already laid great stress on this in the last few years and we have put in a great deal of thought and effort into taking Third World interests and concerns into account in formulating our own policies. In the present circumstances it is essential that Western countries should respect genuine commitments to non-alignment and not make the facile assumption that opposition to Soviet expansionism is synonymous with support for the West. We must also recognise that the problem is as much political as it is military. The political infrastructures in many Third World countries, including those of West Asia and the Middle East, are inadequate and this inadequacy is emphasised by the rapid social changes which are taking place in them. They are vulnerable to challenge from within and subversion from without. The internal political problems are, of course, primarily ones for the countries themselves to deal with, though the developed countries should be prepared to explore ways in which they can offer greater co-operation and assistance. We will also have to take account of the divisions which exist within the Third World, and recognise the fact that progress will depend on moderating and removing these. Again, this is particularly true of the Middle East. It is of great importance that the Arab-Israeli dispute should be resolved, so that it does not continue to distort the pattern of relationships between the West and the Arab world.

Implications for Australia

I turn now to the particular implications of this crisis for Australia and to the steps the Government has taken and proposes to take in relation to it. Quite simply, what the crisis has done is to change substantially for the worse the strategic order underpinning Australia’s security.

What has happened has greatly increased the risk of miscalculation in dealings between the superpowers and makes remote the prospects of restraint in the arms race between them.

As long as West Asia continues to be a crisis point, super-power activity- and hence the level of tension- in the Indian Ocean is bound to be heightened.

As long as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan continues, tension between India and Pakistan is bound to mount. While both countries share a common interest in wishing to insulate the sub-continent from super-power rivalry, the Soviet presence makes this virtually impossible. India is very concerned at the prospect of arms being provided to Pakistan and about the possibility that the new situation will lead to more activity by China in the region. Pakistan is intensely worried at the removal of the Afghanistan buffer and the fact that it is now placed between two countries which are militarily superior to itself and which have a treaty of friendship with each other. This must worsen the general strategic environment in the Indian Ocean area.

The increased threat posed to the oil supply route from the Gulf is of great strategic importance for us. For not only do we ourselves depend to an important extent on Middle East oil but Japan, our major trading partner, imports 80 per cent of its oil from there.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, on one flank of Southern Asia, has happened at a time when, on the other flank, Vietnam is attempting to consolidate its control over Kampuchea, with the active and massive support of the Soviet Union. Whether both event are related within the structure of some larger strategic purpose or not, each carries implications for the other. Certainly the leaders of the Association of South East Asian Nations countries perceive linkages and are deeply concerned. Apart from strategic implications, the invasion of Afghanistan, by creating another mass exodus of refugees, is likely to have a direct effect on regional and international efforts to cope with the growing human tragedy on the border of Thailand and Kampuchea. The capacity of Soviet foreign policy to produce huge flows of refugees is indeed a telling indictment.

The Soviet invasion carries the grave risk that it will force a response from China in one form or another. If it does, this will have both global and regional implications. Another aspect is that insofar as Soviet action results in a developing relationship between the United States, China and Japan, the Soviet Union is likely to respond by seeking to enhance its strategic posture in the West Pacific, possibly in areas which directly affect Australia ‘s security.

Lastly, by provoking new and serious tensions throughout Southern Asia, as well as by relentlessly pursuing its own vertical proliferation, the Soviet Union has increased the danger of nuclear proliferation in the region.

These considerations should make it clear that the changes which have taken place have important implications for Australia’s strategic environment.

What Australia has done

It is these implications, as well as the extreme gravity of the crisis in global terms, which have determined Australia’s response. In that response, the Government has been aware of, and I have stressed repeatedly, the limits of Australia’s power and influence. That, however, is not a reason for not doing what we can or for talking down what influence we have. It would have been irresponsible for the Government not to have acted, not to have cast Australia’s influence in the scales, simply because others had not acted before us. For that reason, in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Afghanistan we announced a series of decisions made by Australia affecting its relations with the Soviet Union. Some of these were substantive, some symbolic. Their essential purpose was to ensure that Australia’s attitude towards the Soviet actions should be registered with absolute clarity. Those measures included:

Support for United States action in relation to grain sales to the Soviet Union by not replacing the grain embargoed by the United States.

A review of Soviet shipping activities in Australia and the suspension of any Commonwealth co-operation on new Soviet maritime initiatives.

As from 31 May Soviet cruise ship operations from Australian ports are suspended; in addition, in present circumstances, there will be no further approvals for Soviet scientific research vessels to visit Australia.

The indefinite suspension of action on the two fishing feasibility projects involving Soviet participation and the withdrawal of previous approvals given in connection with these projects.

The indefinite suspension of all visits by Ministers and senior officials between Australia and the Soviet Union.

The indefinite suspension of the periodic consultations conducted by senior representatives of the Australian and Soviet Foreign Ministries.

Non-acceptance of Soviet approaches to establish direct air services between Australia and the Soviet Union, and refusal to agree to a recent Soviet request to station Aeroflot technical personnel at Sydney.

The indefinite suspension of bilateral science collaboration with the Soviet Union.

A decision not to proceed with earlier proposals by the Soviet Union to conclude separate agreements with Australia covering such matters as agriculture and consular dealings.

The exclusion of any new activities under the current program of cultural co-operation and the withdrawal of official support from other bilateral cultural activities.

A decision not to support the staging of the Olympics at Moscow this year, unless the Soviet Union withdraws from Afghanistan.

These constituted an immediate response. Before making decisions on longer-term policies, the Government decided to consult with the governments of the region and those of the major Western nations. We already had the benefit of Prime Minister Ohira ‘s views during his visit in January. The Foreign Minister visited seven other countries in the region while the Prime Minister went to the United States, Europe and New Zealand. These visits were arranged on very short notice, but in the event we were able to meet with the Heads of Government of each of the countries concerned. The talks have been of the greatest value in extending our appreciation of the perspectives of the countries which are most important to our foreign policy. As there has been some Press speculation about differences among these perspectives, let me say that what stands out clearly is the degree of consensus which exists in the basic analysis of the situation. One direct consequence of the talks is that the ANZUS Council meeting, which was to have been held in Wellington in mid-year, has been brought forward and will now be held in Washington at the end of the month. Our three governments agree that the nature of the circumstances and their implications for the region warranted an earlier meeting.

Defence

Against this background, and bearing in mind the whole context which I have outlined, the Government has decided that the new strategic prospects call for a greater allocation of resources to our defences. We already have a significant defence force by regional standards, but recent world events and the heightened possibilities of change in our strategic circumstances demand an increase in our defence preparedness. This Government has in fact increased defence expenditure in real terms substantially since it has been in office, even in the face of difficult economic circumstances. But as the risk increases, it is prudent to increase insurance. Immediately, the Government has decided to increase operations in the Indian Ocean. This will include extra surveillance flights and naval patrolling, visits to littoral states and exercising with friendly forces in the region. We shall support this operation by training more crews for our long-range maritime patrol aircraft, by base porting ships at Cockburn Sound, by up-grading the facilities at this base and by the development of existing and new airfields in Western Australia. Over the program period we shall develop the facilities for home porting our ships in the West.

Our involvement in Indian Ocean operations will be essentially an independent, national effort. But we will also be supporting the operations of our United States ally by co-ordinating our operations with theirs. The Defence Department is discussing with United States authorities ways in which we can assist their forces, which are operating so far from continental USA. Measures could include use of staging facilities, of the new naval base in Western Australia, of our exercise areas, and support from our repair and maintenance facilities. The Government has instructed the Defence Department to discuss with the United States authorities ways in which we could acquire a fourth FFG guided missile frigate and bring it into service as soon as possible. The Government has also decided to extend the life of HMAS Vampire in a training role beyond 1982. This ship could be brought to operational status very quickly if the need arose. At the same time we will increase investment in the modernisation of Williamstown dockyard. This will support later construction in Australia of new destroyers to replace the present destroyer escorts.

In order to support naval operations in both the Indian and Pacific Oceans we shall be acquiring a second underway replenishment ship. An order for the first is now placed with Vickers

Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd. We will enter into a commitment later this year for 75 new tactical fighter aircraft. We will proceed as quickly as possible with the development and production in Australia of a new basic trainer aircraft. The plant in our aircraft and munition factories will be modernised and there will be greater investment in commercial industries in support of defence needs. This will include defence-related research and development. We will up-grade the weapons systems and sensors of ships and aircraft which would otherwise have become outdated during the 1980s. This includes the weapons systems of the FI 1 1 to carry precisionguided munitions, the older P3B Orion longrange maritime patrol aircraft, and our three DDG guided missile destroyers. The P3B, the Oberon submarines, and the DDGs will be fitted with Harpoon, the long range sea-skimming anti-ship missile. These aircraft, ships and submarines will constitute a formidable strike force.

Some fundamental decisions still have to be taken. Projects under consideration include: Capabilities we might acquire when our aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne retires; the type of new destroyers we will build in Australia later in the 1980s and into the 1990s; aerial refuelling capacity of our strike and fighter aircraft; systems to strengthen our northern air defences. The program now makes adequate financial provision for later decisions on projects such as these. We shall bring two battalions at Townsville up to full strength and equip and maintain them as a ready reaction force. We shall increase the strength of our reserve forces and improve their equipment. In particular, the Army reserve will be increased from its present strength of 22,000 to about 30,000 by the end of the program period. This will give the opportunity for young Australians outside the Defence Force to play their part in improving our defence preparedness.

There will be increases in the Navy and Air Force service manpower to manage and man new equipments entering service and to undertake the increase in operations now required by the Government. There will need to be increased civilian manpower not only in defence but also in our Government factories and dockyards. The Government has not been satisfied with the tardy procedures for adjustment of the pay and conditions of our service men and women. It has recently introduced new procedures that will allow much quicker adjustments. We want the pay and conditions to attract and to retain a high calibre of service men and women, and we shall be giving these matters our attention. We have taken steps to ensure that any case for adjustment is considered with the highest priority by the independent tribunal established for this purpose. As a longer-term measure, co-operation with the independent nations in our neighbouring regions is of major importance. The Government wishes to discuss with our regional friends further development of our defence relations. This could include defence programs for training and other assistance that we might be able to offer. I believe that the abiding security interests that we share with our regional neighbours call for continuing consultation and co-operation in the defence field.

More money will be needed immediately for fuel, spare parts, maintenance and other necessary support for increased operational activity. The Government fully recognises and accepts, however, that the improvement of our defence capabilities, the maintenance of a higher state of preparedness and the expansion of activity in the Indian Ocean and our neighbouring regions will require a sustained increase of resources. Decisions as to actual allocation can only be made in the context of the Budget each year. However, the Government well understands that the recruitment and training of men, the selection and procurement of equipment and the development of supporting military and civil infrastructure takes years to plan and to implement. The Government understands the need for a stable planning base. It has therefore authorised the Department of Defence to plan on the basis of an increase in real terms in 1980-81 of some $95m above its earlier planning guidance, and for spending to be further increased in later years to around 3 per cent of the GPD by 1984-85, the end of the five-year program period. The percentage increase in 1980-81 in real terms will be at lest 5.5 per cent. Over the next five years, the proportion of expenditure on capital investment will increase from the present figure of about 15 percent to over 25 per cent.

The South Pacific

In the South Pacific the Government will continue to consult with island governments on a number of proposals to enhance the development and the security of our common region. We will do so because we attach great importance to their general well-being and because we recognise that some of the other measures we are taking in relation to the Soviet Union will involve some costs on their part. The measures we propose include: A three-year forward civil aid commitment of $120m for the island states, representing a significant increase of over 40 per cent on the level of our present commitment of $84m, and the continuation of our development import grants for the islands; sending an Australian team to the island states to help assess the need and technical requirements for maritime surveillance; the early conclusion and implementation of a trade agreement giving the Forum island states comprehensive non-reciprocal access to the Australian market; the further strengthening of our diplomatic network in the region, bearing in mind that the number of missions we have in the South Pacific has already almost doubled since this Government came to office; continued strong support for the strengthening of effective regional institutions and activities in the region, including the Forum Fisheries Agency, and expanded programs of cultural exchanges between Australia and the islands.

Trade

As far as trade is concerned, the Prime Minister announced a number of measures on 9 January. Principal among these was our decision, to which I have already referred, to co-operate with the United States and other major grain exporting nations in ensuring that the 17 million tonnes shortfall resulting from President Carter’s decision was not prejudiced by increased sales by other exporters. Since then, in consultation with the United States and the United Kingdom, we have kept under review our general trading relationship with the USSR. The review specifically covered mineral raw materials, the export of which to the USSR was suspended by the Government pending a full review, including the results of consultations overseas by the Prime Minister. All this has now been completed, and took into account the attitudes of other countries including the United States. None of these minerals raw materials is, or ever has been, subject to control by the Co-ordinating Committee on Exports of Technology to Communist Countries (COCOM) whose membership includes the United States, its NATO allies and Japan. A review of the COCOM list of prohibited items is being undertaken by member countries, but it is not contemplated that the raw materials in question will be included in the list. Australia will continue to consult closely with the United States and the United Kingdom, in particular, on this matter.

Again, it must be emphasised that the essential criterion must be the effectiveness of the measures taken in terms of their impact on the Soviet Union. The USSR is not dependent on imports of strategic materials, and would have little difficulty in replacing Australia as a supplier of mineral raw materials. The Government has therefore decided that exports of these mineral raw materials to the USSR should continue normally. This is consistent with the position of the United States, the United Kingdom and other COCOM members.

The Economy

In order to sustain strong, co-ordinated foreign policies, with increasing resources devoted to defence, it is essential that the major independent countries maintain healthy, expanding economies. Yet the economic circumstances in which we face this new challenge are not easy. The international economic scene is clouded. Inflation remains high among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, and prospects for significant economic growth in the OECD area as a whole are dim. There is the continuing threat of growing protectionism. It is therefore crucial that we all redouble our efforts to fight inflation and establish the conditions for sustained economic growth. Fortunately, in Australia, as I have said before, our prospects look much better. Inflation in Australia has been pushed down to a level below that of the OECD average and is significantly below the rates in major overseas countries.

At this time of increasing world tension, we have the advantages of our renewed international competitiveness; major development projects based on energy and raw materials; new industries, together with the opening up of new export markets in South East Asia and Europe. Confidence of local and overseas investors in Australia is high. We have a deep responsibility to our allies and to our friends to ensure that these confident expectations are fulfilled. That is why the Government will continue with its broad economic policies- the policies which have so successfully brought us to our present position of renewed strength and confidence.

Conclusion

The scope of the measures, some of which will involve considerable costs to Australia, indicate both the seriousness with which the Government views the present state of international relations and its determination to play its part alongside like-minded countries. I say alongside; it is not a matter of being behind anyone or of acting on anyone else’s behalf. What we shall do we shall do because we perceive it to be in Australia’s interest. We shall co-operate with others only because we perceive their interests to be parallel to ours. Let me also make it clear that the Government sees these measures as the beginning of a long, sustained haul, along with not only our allies but all countries who are concerned for their independence and security. There will be no quick fix’ to the situation we now face.

Before the decade began the prospects for the 1 980s were not such as to arouse great optimism. But I do not think that anyone expected such a serious deterioration in so short a time. Tension between the super-powers has increased greatly. Detente has been dealt a terrible blow. The prospects for arms-control have diminished. The viability of the concept of non-alignment has been undermined. The security of the world ‘s oil supplies has been reduced. New apprehensions have been created on the Indian sub-continent. The level of super-power rivalry in the Indian Ocean has increased. These changes have gone a long way towards changing the contours of international relations in the 1980s. Whatever can be salvaged of the concept itself, the age of detente is now over. But what we are witnessing is not a return to the Cold War. The world we live in is now too complex for the simplicities of bipolarity to return; there are too many centres of power, too many ideological permutations for that to happen. The new era into which we are moving still awaits a name that will crystallise it in people’s minds. But one thing stands out: The one essential consideration for a reduction of tension is that the Soviet Union comes to see the wisdom of behaving with the restraint and responsibility commensurate with its great weight and power. As long as one of the world’s superpowers pursues a course of expansion and intimidation, the world will go on being a tense and unstable place.

Forty years ago the world was just embarking on the terrible conflict of the Second World War, which Churchill rightly called ‘the unnecessary war’. It was unnecessary because, in the early days of Nazi aggression, comparatively modest steps would have been sufficient to deter it. In the name of peace and business-as-usual those steps were not taken. Those who advocated themincluding Churchill himself- were denounced as war mongers. The sense of reality- the connection between cause and event were lost in a sequence of compromises, appeasement and the self-deluding hope that unopposed aggression would not feed on itself. It would be tragicindeed it would be disastrous for the human race- if that mistake were to be repeated only a few decades later. The case for a firm, measured and sustained response to the present crisis, the case for giving effective support to the United States whose resolve is crucial, is that it is essential in order to avoid another unnecessary war.

I present the following paper:

Afghanistan: Australia’s Assessment and ResponseMinisterial statement, 19 February 1980.

I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 26

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill (No. 3 ) 1 979.

High Court of Australia Bill 1979.

Judiciary Amendment Bill (No. 2 ) 1 979.

Evidence Amendment Bill 1979.

Remuneration and Allowances Bill 1 979.

Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1 979.

Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1 979.

Defence Amendment Bill 1979.

Naval Defence Amendment Bill 1979.

Air Force Amendment Bill 1 979.

Defence Force (Retirement and Death Benefits Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill 1 979.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1 979.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1979.

Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1979.

Income Tax Laws Amendment Bill 1 979.

Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1979.

Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1979.

Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1979.

Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) 1979-80.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1979-80.

Queensland Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1979.

Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Bill 1979.

Australian Federal Police (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1979.

Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Amendment Bill 1979.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979.

Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Repeal Bill 1979.

States and Northern Territory Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1979.

Canned Fruits Marketing Bill 1979.

Canned Fruits Levy Bill 1979.

Canned Fruits Le vy Collection Bill 1979.

Canned Fruit (Sales Promotion) Amendment Bill 1979.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979.

Excise Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979.

Wheat Marketing Bill 1979.

Wheat Levy Bill (No. 1 ) 1979.

Wheat Levy Bill (No. 2 ) 1 979.

Wheat Industry Stabilization ( Reimbursement of Borrowing Costs) Amendment Bill 1979.

Wheat Products Export Adjustment Amendment Bill 1979.

Wheat Tax Bill 1979.

Wheat Research Amendment Bill 1 979.

National Companies and Securities Commission Bill 1979.

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1 979.

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979.

Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1979.

Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1 979.

Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Excise Tariff Validation Bill 1979.

Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4 ) 1 979.

Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1979.

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill 1979.

Sugar Agreement Bill 1979.

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1 979.

States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill 1 979.

Public Accounts Committee Amendment Bill 1979.

Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Bill 1979.

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1979.

Australian National University Amendment Bill 1979.

Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1979.

page 27

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS OF STATUTORY AUTHORITIES OF THE COMMONWEALTH

The PRESIDENT:

– Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate on 23 November 1979, 1 lay on the table the third Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth. In accordance with the terms of the resolution, I direct the printing and circulation of the report.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I move:

The main purpose of the report is to make further recommendations to improve the accountability of authorities. One of the main ways of achieving proper accountability by authorities is the presentation to Parliament of a timely and adequate annual report. Because so many annual reports in recent years had been late and had contained insufficient information it was clear that the reporting system was in some way breaking down. The Committee decided to adopt a case study approach to determine where improvements in the system might be made. The Committee chose as examples the reports of several authorities which were particularly late in their presentation. In general, the investigations disclosed a sorry story of prolonged disputes, deficiencies in foresight, problems in decision making, lack of co-operation and plain errors. Our conclusions on the individual authorities ‘ reports are set out in our report and I will not elaborate on them today, other than in relation to the Wheat Board which I shall return to. However, I would mention that the Committee is continuing to keep a close watch on the preparation of the financial statements of the Australian Wheat Board, which honourable senators will recall was the subject of an admonishment by the Senate in the motion passed on 22 November last.

On the basis of these case studies it was plain that a very low priority had been given to the preparation of reports for the Parliament. A common thread ran through the histories of the preparation of the reports. The Committee has therefore concluded that major and comprehensive changes to the system of annual reporting is required, particularly in relation to the preparation of authorities’ accounts. These changes should be effected through the Committee’s proposed annual reports Act which would automatically apply to all authorities and would therefore achieve reform at a stroke. The following are the provisions which the Committee considers should be part of an annual reports Act: A time limit for reporting to the Parliament of six months for commercial authorities and nine months for other authorities; authorities to present an interim report to the Parliament if a final report has not been presented within the above periods; a time limit of two months to be set within which the form of authorities ‘ accounts must be approved by the Minister statutorily responsible, that is, the Minister for Finance; where no decision has been given within two months the form should be deemed to have been approved for that year; authorities to operate under one accounting standard only. For commercial authorities the standard should be accrual accounting, certainly not cost accounting.

The Committee also recommends that if authorities have failed to comply with the above time limits the matter should be automatically referred to the Committee for investigation and report. One of the problems in resolving the disputes over the accounts, which had been so common in the investigations, was that no single party has been willing or indeed able to assume responsibility for taking the decisions necessary to settle the disputes. Under the Australian government system the Parliament is the most suitable body to assume this responsibility. As the parliamentary committee with the responsibility for the continuing oversight of statutory authorities, the Committee believes it should undertake this role on behalf of the Parliament. In order to identify the disputes at an early stage the Committee will rely primarily on information from the Auditor-General’s Office as an early warning system.

The Committee will maintain its oversight of Commonwealth statutory authorities and will continue to press for improvements in their accountability during the coming year. It will be calling for submissions from all interested parties on the inquiry in the near future. In particular submissions will be sought in relation to the categorisation proposed by the Committee in its second report and the appropriate provision to be made in an annual reports Act to specify the form of accounts and reports to be required from the various categories of authorities. Submissions on the question of the appropriateness or otherwise of sunset legislation will also be called. The Committee will conduct public hearings on these and other related matters.

Bearing in mind that the matter of the Australian Wheat Board was raised in the Senate in November last year and that the Senate unanimously carried a resolution in relation to it on 22 November, I wish to report specifically to the Senate in relation to the Australian Wheat Board. The Committee found that the main cause of delay in the presentation of the Board ‘s annual report was the inability of the Board to adapt to the new accounting requirements provided by its 1 974 enabling legislation. The Board must accept full responsibility for the failure to present financial statements since 1976, which the Committee considers to be most unsatisfactory. The Board is a very important Commonwealth statutory authority, handling over $1 billion of wheat growers’ money each year- $1 billion of money from sales and $ 1 billion of payments to the growers. The Auditor-General ‘s investigation of the Board ‘s accounts disclosed that the Board’s acounting practices left much to be desired. The Committee has accepted the Board ‘s assurances that its accounting practices have improved, that it has now adapted to the new accounting requirements and that it has put on sufficient qualified staff to enable it to carry out its functions. However, the Committee will keep a close watch on developments in the near future.

The Committee concluded that all the Board ‘s accounts should be kept on an accrual basis, as one cause of the difficulties had been the keeping of the Pools Realisation Statement on a cash basis. The Committee was critical of the Board’s decision to present two different versions of its 1978 report- one labelled interim, in a photocopied, loose-leafed form which was presented to Parliament, without financial statements; and the other, implicitly a final report on glossy paper with coloured photographs and charts, which was distributed to wheat growers and elsewhere. It gave the impression that it was the statutory report which the Board was obliged to present. The Committee considered that the Board should avoid this misleading practice in the future. Yesterday the Committee received a telex from the

Board indicating that it submitted to the Auditor-General on 1 8 January this year its draft financial statements for the year ending 30 November 1977. The Board further indicated:

Notwithstanding the extremely tight deadlines remaining for the finalisation of audit, printing and presentation to Parliament we still believe completion of the task by Thursday, 28th February, 1980, is possible and are working on this basis.

The Auditor-General’s office has recently indicated that they see some logistical problems in finalising/ processing the work at their Victorian and central offices. However, we are co-operating fully to assist them in overcoming any problems that may arise.

At the public hearing conducted in Melbourne by the Committee on 13 December 1979 apologies both to the Committee and the Senate were tendered by the Board Chairman and General Manager. It is clear that, belatedly, the seriousness of the situation into which the Australian Wheat Board had got itself became clear to those charged with the responsibility of managing it. Therefore, the Committee is glad to report to the Senate that it believes that appropriate action is now being taken. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to move the motion.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak briefly to this motion. I agree with the general thrust of the ideas of Senator Rae and the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations that statutory authorities ought to be fully accountable to Parliament and ought to report on time. However, I want to draw attention to a glaring inconsistency in the application of that principle by the Government and by Senator Rae. Indeed, what one might euphemistically call inconsistency is rapidly becoming the hallmark of this Government. On the one hand, the Australian Wheat Board is threatened with dismissal by a motion carried unanimously in this House because of its failure to report and for the number of errors contained in a preliminary report which it had presented previously. On the other hand, Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd, a subsidiary of another statutory corporation, has had a report into its activities prepared by the Auditor-General and suppressed by the Government with the endorsement of Senator Rae and every other Liberal and National Country Party senator in the Senate on 23 November. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) has been pressed by the Opposition since the beginning of the Budget Session of Parliament to release the Auditor-General ‘s report into Asia Dairy Industries or at least to acknowledge its existence. Finally, after a number of questions, on 15

November, in refusing to table the report, the Minister stated:

  1. . that the practices that caused concern to the Auditor-General are no longer relevant.

A week later, again refusing to table the report, he stated: the delicate and sensitive commercial report should not be made public.

I ask the Senate to note that those reasons are mutually exclusive. Given that his second excuse was that it was a sensitive commercial document which should not be made public, I telegrammed the Minister for Primary Industry that I would be in Canberra on 7 December and that I wished to inspect the report in his office. I guaranteed not to disclose any commercial information it may have contained. On 5 December I received a reply from the Minister, by telegram, which stated:

It would be contrary to proper conduct in such matters to disclose the reports until full consideration has been given to the question of further action being taken upon the reports.

In the three statements to which I have referred we went from the assertion by the Minister that the practices were no longer relevant, to the assertion that full consideration had to be given to the question of further action having been taken upon those reports. Again I draw to the Senate ‘s notice the mutual exclusivity to those answers. I invite the Minister for Primary Industry to tell us which, if any, of those mutually exclusive answers is true. We in the Opposition believe we have a fairly accurate knowledge of what is disclosed in the Auditor-General’s reports. I serve notice on the Government that the facts will be released in this Parliament sooner or later. We are giving the Government another opportunity to follow the correct procedures and have the report tabled in Parliament so that we will not put into the record allegations which may not be entirely true, although without doubt substantially true- allegations involving a number of people associated or previously associated with the Australian Dairy Corporation.

The fact is that that report on a statutory corporation by a servant of the Parliament has been suppressed by the Government, by the Minister with the collaboration of Senator Rae and every other Liberal and Country Party senator who was present on 23 November. So Senator Rae’s pious rhetoric, valid though it may be, about the Australian Wheat Board and other statutory corporations will lose its credibility until Senator Rae and other Liberal and Country Party senators vote for a motion ordering the Government to table that Auditor-General’s report in the Senate.

I trust that the action by Senator Rae and other honourable senators in voting against a motion to suspend Standing Orders so that a motion ordering the tabling of the report could be moved was a hasty action and that, having given the matter due consideration, they will change their attitude towards ordering the tabling of that report when the motion is next moved in the Senate. I assure the Government and serve notice on the Government that the motion will be moved again in the Senate. Senator Rae and all of the other senators on the Government side who claim to support the principle of responsibility and accountability of statutory authorities to this Parliament will then have the opportunity to put their votes where they profess their principles to be.

Senator RAE (Tasmania)- by leave- I would like to respond briefly to what Senator Walsh has said. If he could get his procedures right we might get this matter cleared up far more effectively if he did not engage in what I regard as an ineffective, unlikely to succeed method of going about achieving an objective. I believe that the Australian Dairy Corporation should be accountable to the Parliament and that in due course, through the proper procedures, any reports in relation to it should be available to members of this chamber. Let me make that quite clear.

Senator Walsh:

– Will you vote for the motion next time?

Senator RAE:

– I will not vote for a motion under threat from Senator Walsh. I will not vote for a motion in which he misconceives the way in which he ought to go about achieving an objective. I may even be tempted to move an appropriate motion myself.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-May I take the opportunity of this motion to make some relatively brief comments about the way in which this report, and indeed its two predecessors on the subject of statutory authorities, have been received and understood in the media and in the community at large. I take the view that the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government operations on this statutory authority reference has been wholly admirable. Indeed, as a member of that Committee, I could hardly say anything else. But I am concerned that the work of the Committee is being misrepresented, or at least misunderstood, in some quarters and being construed as some kind of vendetta against statutory authorities and public sector administrative agencies generally.

I am concerned that the report and its predecessors have been construed as at least giving aid and comfort to those whose ideological beliefs are of that particular kind. I believe that it is important to put the record straight and I seek to do so from the perspective of a Labor member of that Committee who has participated- in this respect I hope I also speak for my colleagues Senators McAuliffe and McClelland- in the work of the Committee in good faith on the basis that the work is concerned with improving the efficiency and accountability of public sector authorities and not ensuring their wholesale destruction, or of lending any cover of respectability to those who are tempted to go on an ideological rampage whenever any mention of the public sector is made.

Whilst not suggesting for a moment that anything that Senator Rae may have done in this respect has been deliberately done- I make that statement in the hope that we might avoid a further personal explanation from him- I regret Senator Rae’s enthusiasm as an individual legislator for limiting and reducing the size of the public sector by such means as the selling off of Trans-Australia Airlines, and his many public statements to that effect, have sometimes tended to be confused with his statements, as Chairman of this Committee, on the immediate subject matter of this committee’s report. I think it is important to avoid any possibility of confusion of that kind, because the work of this Committee lends no colour to any such conclusions.

As a member of the Committee, there is not one word of the third report now before us or the first two reports- from which I would seek in any way to resile. I believe that it is very important to demonstrate the scale on which statutory authorities operate, and the economic implications they have for the operation of the economy and nation as a whole. I believe it is very important to bring to light instances of laxity in the administration of statutory authorities such as is the primary subject matter of this third report. I believe that it is important to state- as the Committee did in the report- that the history of too many authorities reporting to this Parliament does, as we said: . . demonstrates indifference on the part of the executive Government to the importance of their accountability to the Parliament and to the people.

I fully support the kind of recommendations contained in this third report about improving the reporting processes of statutory authorities to this

Parliament. I repeat that what these reports are not about in any sense is the conduct of a vendetta of any kind against particular statutory authorities or this aspect of the public sector as a whole. Some of the more lurid reporting in the Press of this and previous reports has regrettably given a degree of credibility to claims of that kind. To take one example, I refer to the editorial of the Australian on 15 February, when the following statement was made:

When the committee was formed four years ago nobody knew how many Qangos there were. It is now known there are about 2S0 (in the Commonwealth sphere alone) which have subdivided themselves into about 500 separate bodies, all sucking on the public purse. Between them, they employ two out of every three public servants. Many of them nave outlived their function but have continued to exist, generating work to justify that existence, in true Parkinsonian fashion.

That is a little bit more lurid perhaps than some other comment in other papers- as one would expect from this newspaper- but it is not disconsonant with the tenor of many other newspaper reports, media and public comment on the activities of this Committee. I repeat that there is nothing in any of the Committee ‘s reports to date which gives support to any such conclusions as are implicit and explicit in that editorial. Indeed nor could there be anything in our reports to this effect, because I imagine it would be readily conceded, certainly on our side and I imagine on the Government’s side of the Committee- that there are very many good reasons for establishing from time to time statutory authorities to conduct business enterprises, to operate as primary industry authorities or to act as administrative, advisory or adjudicative bodies- the various categories that our Committee has identified. One of those reasons can be identified as a concern to avoid political control and to provide impartiality in the administration of the program in question. Other reasons are: To avoid departmental procedures or to provide a separate channel of advice; to relieve Ministers of day to day administration; to provide more self-contained financing and budgetary mechanisms; to bring outside expertise into management; to foster esprit de corps or an institutional pride through a separate identity for the agency in question; to gain the legal advantages that are from time to time necessary or desirable with respect to the administration of particular government programs on an independent basis; or, of course, to facilitate a function where more than one government is involved. It is for one or more of those kinds of reasons that we have, and are thoroughly justified in having, a great many, in fact the overwhelming majority, of the existing statutory authorities.

That is not to say, however- I conclude on this point- that it is always right to adopt the statutory authority solution to particular public administration problems. I believe that the attitude of my party to this matter is well articulated in the platform provision which was adopted at our Adelaide National Conference in 1979. Again, to avoid any possible misunderstanding in either this Parliament or the community as a whole about what my party’s attitude is to this exercise, I quote the following short passage from the platform:

A Labor Government will . . . Review existing statutory authorities and make necessary changes to ensure their accountability to the Parliament and minister and their adherence to the principles of public administration as set out in this platform. In addition-

ensure that when new functions of government are established, that so far as possible these are carried out within ministerial departments; and

introduce where appropriate ‘sunset’ legislation so set fixed terms to the life of government authorities to ensure a regular review of their functions and efficiency.

That expresses the basis on which I certainly have participated in the work of this Committee and the basis, I believe, on which my party has participated in and will continue to support in good faith the work of this Committee. Indeed, that emphasis on efficiency and accountability is wholly consistent with the Labor Party’s general philosophical commitment to the public sector as a significant and efficient vehicle for ensuring social justice and equity. That is the basis on which I have participated, not out of a desire to give any nourishment at all to the more extraordinary interpretations of what the Committee is about. And that, I repeat, is the basis on which I believe my party will support the work of the Committee both in opposition and in government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 31

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I present the report and the transcript of evidence from the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the New International Economic Order: Implications for Australia.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator SIM:

– by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 31

RECORDING OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS

Ministerial Statement

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) by leave- As I mentioned in the Senate on 21 November 1979, I asked the Solicitor-General, Mr Byers, to furnish advice on the legality of certain practices used to record telephone conversations. I took this action because doubts had arisen as to the application of the relevant legislation. Mr Byers has now furnished his advice which deals with situations where one party to a telephone conversation records the conversation without a warrant and without the knowledge of the other party. He found that:

Such a recording by means of an inductive device, that is to say, a device placed on or near the telephone instrument that picks up by induction the electrical impulses passing over the telephone system, contravenes the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960.

However, such a recording by means of a device that, by a microphone, records the sound entering or leaving a telephone receiver does not contravene either the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act or the bylaws made under the Telecommunications Act 1975.

Recording a conversation by means of equipment supplied by Telecom as part of the telephone service was not illegal. The standard equipment supplied by Telecom emits a pip tone to warn parties to the conversation that it is being recorded.

The Government has noted that on the SolicitorGeneral ‘s advice some forms of recording a telephone conversation by a party to that conversation are legal and other forms of recording by a party are illegal. Having regard to the SolicitorGeneral ‘s conclusions, the Government has decided to review the need to regulate any form of recording a telephone conversation by one party to the telephone conversation. However, I must make it clear that the Government has no intention of relaxing the present restrictions on interception of telephone conversations by persons not party to the conversation. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Sir Colin Woods, has instructed his members to comply with the law as explained by the Solicitor-General. A similar instruction will be issued to all Commonwealth officers engaged in investigation activities. The matter will also be brought to the attention of State Governments so that State police forces will be aware of the legal position.

Induction devices that attach to a telephone instrument by a suction cap have been on general sale for some time and seem to be widely used in the community. There appears to have been a belief in the community, which over a number of years has extended to many federal police officers, that these devices may be legally used by one party to a telephone conversation to record the conversation without the knowledge of the other party. On the views expressed by Mr Byers this is, of course, incorrect.

However, having regard to these special circumstances and the technical nature of the distinction between legal and illegal recordings, I have decided in relation to past contraventions of the law as explained by Mr Byers that, unless there are special circumstances of aggravation, it would not be appropriate to prosecute where the recording was carried out by a party to the conversation or a person acting with the knowledge and consent of that party. However, for the future, we have a clear statement of the operation of the law and I can assure the Senate that the law will be strictly enforced. I present the following paper.

Recording of Telephone Conversations- Ministerial Statement, 19 February 1980- and move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition has not had a great deal of opportunity to peruse this statement. I indicate that we would like a chance to debate it in a little more detail than I will be able to do so in the remarks that I now wish to make. One of the difficulties about the statement is that in our view the advice given by the Solicitor-General to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack)- however willingly the Attorney-General might wish to accept it for what appear to be practical reasons in the terms in which he has expressed them- appears to be contrary to the one decided case on this matter, that is Padman ‘s case. In those circumstances, it is a quite unsatisfactory course for the AttorneyGeneral to provide a purported solution to this matter by bringing into the Senate an opinion from the Solicitor-General without presumably any further action and, on the basis of that decision, to say that the Australian Federal Police and others will be instructed to act in accordance with that advice.

Of course, one does not have to draw attention to the difficulties which might arise in the case of a person who is aggrieved by the manner in which the police carry out the advice which the Attorney-General has accepted in this way and who ends up in litigation in court and relies then on a decided case of a supreme court of Australia. A totally confusing situation could arise. In those circumstances, we find the statement distinctly unsatisfactory. We draw the Attorney’s attention to this matter at this stage of the proceedings and seek to have the opportunity later to deal with it further.

At page 2 of the circulated statement, the Attorney-General says:

  1. . The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Sir Colin Woods, has instructed his members to comply with the law as explained by the Solicitor-General.

With the greatest respect, on our understanding of what the Solicitor-General has said and explained, that is not the law. In those circumstances, there are very real difficulties if the members of the Australian Federal Police comply with this opinion and the matter results in subsequent litigation, in the courts, brought by parties aggrieved by the manner in which the advice of the Solicitor-General has been applied. I think it is important, because people may be aggrieved by a course of conduct which follows from the somewhat glib acceptance of this advice, that these matters be brought to the attention of the Attorney. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 32

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE REGULATIONS

Notice of Motion

The PRESIDENT:

-Is Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Gietzelt for the disallowance of certain Australian Federal Police regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1979 No. 2 10 formal or not formal?

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– Not formal. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 32

AFGHANISTAN: AUSTRALIA’S ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The statement which was put down in this chamber about an hour ago by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was a very lengthy statement and one which obviously could be canvassed at length. Our procedures to a large extent preclude a proper deliberation on statements such as the one that we heard this afternoon. This creates problems. I am somewhat regretful that there was not more time for the Opposition to consider the statement. We must bear in mind that a statement of that nature delivered by the Prime Minister has been worked on by a large number of professionals in the Prime Minister’s own Department and in the Department of Foreign Affairs over some time. Therefore, there tends to be some danger perhaps, in a response when the Opposition has not had the time to consider a statement in a thoughtful manner. Nevertheless, there are some matters which I believe we can comment on, and I will do so initially.

This is not a debate in which either side should consider itself to be the winner or consider the other side to be the loser. The issues that were canvassed in the Prime Minister’s statement are obviously far too big for the Opposition in this Parliament to consider that it will win the debate or that the Government will win the debate. It would be superfluous for any of us to dwell on the magnitude of these problems. But one thing should be said: We are all potentially winners or we are all potentially losers. This applies to all of us, not only to members of this Parliament. It does not matter whether we live in Australia or another part of the world.

If the events which we have witnessed not only in recent weeks but over many years are to continue and the world community is to go on in the present way and with the present dangers, one would need to be an optimist of the first order to believe that mankind will escape the inevitable. I say that deliberately not with the intent of the prophet of gloom and doom syndrome. I do not think that we can treat these matters as lightly as that. We do know that we live not only in a world which is full of dangerous areas and problems but also in times in which there is the undoubted capacity literally to destroy the human race. They are the sorts of issues that we are talking about.

Therefore, if it is possible, we, as what might be termed a middle nation ought to try to contribute in whatever way we can to avert those things that are happening. None of what I have said precludes the right of the Opposition to question the way in which the Government is handling the current situation or, indeed, does it preclude the right of the Government to be critical of us so long as we do not lose sight of the fact that in the final analysis there will not be any winners. I hope that we direct our minds towards those matters whereby we can at least play whatever pan we can in making a more sane and perhaps a safer world.

The events that have precipitated the statement that was put down this afternoon can be identified as the Soviet military involvement in Afghanistan. Prior to that, of course, we also saw the very dangerous position that had developed in Iran. I do not think that I am wrong in saying that, if there is any reference to Iran in the Prime Minister’s speech, it must be in a passing sense only. Yet if one were to nominate a specific country where the dangers may be greater than they are in Afghanistan it could well be Iran. The problems of the United States in that country obviously have not been resolved although we naturally all hope that common sense will prevail.

The fundamental point that I start with is that it is idle to imagine that the events of the last few weeks are matters that arise overnight and that all of a sudden out of nowhere the world is plunged into what is termed a crisis. I doubt that there has been one significant event in the last 30 years which one could call a crisis which has arisen overnight. Matters fester for some time before they actually become highlighted around the world. Certainly Afghanistan could be put in that category.

Let us consider the events in Iran back in 195 1- this is perhaps not the time to canvass the history of that country- when I had the fortune or misfortune to be there myself and to witness some of the things that happened. Let us consider also what subsequently happened in 1953 with the overthrow of” the Mossadegh government of that country. That overthrow, as is on the public record, took place with the assistance of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Those matters have not been forgotten by the Iranian people. We begin to realise some of the reasons why the Iranian people feel so strongly today and feel that an injustice was perpetrated upon them years ago. It might seem a long time to us, but I am quite sure that if those events had taken place in this country none of us would have forgotten them.

I come directly to the speech and to the issues behind the statement. The events in Afghanistan have been complex over the past few years, especially since the overthrow of the monarchy in 1973. There have been subsequent changes in government since that period. I suppose the watershed came in April 1978 when a Marxist or communist government was installed in that country. At this point it is pertinent to refer specifically to the comments of the Prime Minister about this event. Most people were given to believe that when the initial Soviet attack took place in Afghanistan it was part of an expansionist policy by the Soviet Government in the Middle East. Certainly the Prime Minister would have given that impression in the statements he has made. Other more cautious and I think more observant people, including members of the Opposition, pointed out at that time that the background to the invasion of Afghanistan created a different climate and that this would lead one into realising that factors other than expansionism were involved. It is interesting that in the statement the Prime Minister does make what is quite a major concession to this alternative argument. He said:

Some commentators have placed heavy emphasis on the defensive concerns of the Soviet leadership in relation to Afghanistan, its worry about the possibility of the collapse of the Marxist regime there and the spread of internal fighting or of Islamic revivalism. I do not discount these elements. They are part- perhaps an important part- of the total picture.

He went on to say:

But they are certainly not the whole picture.

That is true; they are not the whole picture. It is interesting that in the weeks that have elapsed since the Soviet invasion of that country at least one person is on record as having learned there was far more to the invasion than he himself realised when it actually took place. I think it is good that that paragraph is in the speech because as the weeks have passed we have all begun to realise the increasing complexity and the implications of this problem which is confronting the world. Therefore that almost violent reaction initially especially by Mr Fraser- a strident reaction as some people have called it- was not really suitable to the circumstances. I do not think there is any need for me to canvass the argument again because we on the Opposition side have made our position very clear on many occasions, but none of us condones, nor would we in any way support, the fact that the Soviet Union used its military forces to cross its borders with another country in order to settle a political dispute in that country. Under no circumstances should we ever condone such action.

The Government does not believe in that principle either because, if I may add as an aside, when the Indonesians attacked East Timor the Australian Government eventually recognised both in fact and legally Indonesia’s right to occupy East Timor. In no way was there the same measure of condemnation when the Chinese attacked Vietnam only 12 months ago. I have been having a series of” correspondence with the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) on the Uganda-Tanzania issue. In those letters, which I will not deal with now, there is in fact a justification for the invasion of Uganda by Tanzanian military forces. But we must be consistent. If we believe that no nation has the right to use military forces to cross its borders then we should never deviate from that principle under any circumstances. We in the Labor Party certainly take that stand.

Mr Fraser’s initial statements, which I described as strident, were indeed a reflection of a reaction which was not thought through. For example, on 23 January he said:

It is all very well for us to sit back and say when they have declared their view, we will declare ours.

I do not think that is the nature of our task.

Somebody has got to be in the first few.

That sort of language might have sounded suitable at the time, but since then we have found- I am sure Mr Fraser has also- how much more complex and difficult it is to put these things into practice. This was particularly the case in regard to his reference to trade sanctions which would be imposed against the Soviet Union. All this was in the light of what appeared to be his undoubted conviction that the Soviet Union was hell bent on gaining control of the Persian Gulf area and of the world’s oil supplies, and eventually of course on world domination. I doubt very much that even Mr Fraser really believes that, but more about that later.

At this stage I would like to mention the quite different attitudes which have been expressed by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. On the matter of economic sanctions, on behalf of the Opposition I previously stated quite clearly that we did not believe that economic sanctions against countries would work unless they can be seen to be effective in some way. It was at about this time that two Government members reported back upon their return from Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. On 23 January they said:

It was amazing how the country had advanced under the limitations of sanctions, and was not only able to sustain itself, but also to export food and industrial exports to other countries.

They were Mr Jull and Mr Porter, two Liberal members of Parliament. If that applied in the case of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia which has been under world wide economic sanctions for no fewer than 14 years it was apparent that any talk about economic sanctions against a country such as the Soviet with such a large economy and largely a self-sufficient economy was nonsensical; it was really nonsensical to be suggesting that any real hurt could be done to a country of that size. It is similar to saying to the United States that we can hurt its economy by imposing economic sanctions. It does not work.

As we know, Mr Fraser took a very strong line. In contrast Mr Peacock took a very different line. For example, on the question of the boycott of the Moscow Games, a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 8 January stated as follows:

  1. . Mr Peacock said yesterday he was not moved by suggestions that the Olympic Games be boycotted because it was mainly a question for sporting bodies and he was not sure the USSR would suffer from a boycott.

That is not the most fundamental issue. Nevertheless, that statement did indicate that a much different attitude was held by our Foreign Minister.

Senator Chipp:

– And probably his Department.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I will come to that. Senator Chipp is right. In the Press statements I have issued on this matter I have said that Mr Peacock has been acting on the advice of his Department but that I was afraid that Mr Fraser was not doing so. I know that the departmental officers were not feeding that strident hard line to the Government but were being pushed aside and disregarded. There was evidence of that when we went to a luncheon with the Prime Minister and the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Ohira, in Melbourne three weeks ago, when we saw the results of the professional being lined up against the amateur. We saw the infinitely greater degree of wisdom of Mr Ohira in dealing with these matters and also in discussion with his officers compared with the quite non-professional way in which these matters were being handled by our Prime Minister. I am quite sure that had Mr Peacock been the speaker there we would have heard a very different speech. In an interview with a representative of the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 1 January Mr Peacock was asked this question:

Do you believe the USSR seeks control of Middle East oil supplies?

Just imagine that question being asked of Mr Fraser! Had that been the case the response would have been a great big thumping ‘Yes’. Mr Peacock said:

Well, again, it is a matter of opportunity rather than planning and the opportunities have now increased. Only a foolish Foreign Minister would sweep that possibility aside.

That is quite true; only a foolish Foreign Minister would sweep that possibility aside. But, as Mr Peacock said, ‘it is a matter of opportunity rather than planning’. That was a very different emphasis from what we had been hearing from his Prime Minister. Then another question was asked:

Would you agree with the proposition that while USSR intervention in Afghanistan is not morally worse than American intervention in the Dominican Republic, 1965 is not 1980, as mentioned before, and that great powers can no longer project their power into small nations without seriously destabilising the whole world order?

Mr Peacock in reply said:

I won’t make distinctions about the comparative morality of such issues, but your question contains an innate truth. 1 had hoped the USSR would recognise this truth by now. I’m not, of course, talking about the Soviet Union’s aspirations to great power influence and power, but about its outright, blatant intervention and misuse of power.

There again, the Minister for Foreign Affairs was much more cautious in his response than would have been the case had his Prime Minister responded. Again, as reported in the same article, Mr Peacock was asked:

Do you think the Soviet Union poses a threat to Australia in the Indian Ocean?

Mr Peacock’s response was:

Well we have seen in the past a diminution of Russian power in the Indian Ocean, but the best advice given this Government by its strategic advisers is to keep a wary eye on events there. No, the Soviet Union constitutes no direct threat, but we need to keep an eye on it.

The questioner then said:

But the USSR has been fairly cautious, hasn ‘t it?

Mr Peacock replied:

Yes, it has. But so have we. Entry of a great power into one ‘s own area is a matter of strategic importance.

I think that is one of the most sensible responses-

Senator Chipp:

– When was that?

Senator WRIEDT:

-That was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 1 January.

Senator Chipp:

– This year?

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes. Mr Peacock said that there was no direct threat. We will not argue that point. But the significant point in his statement was made in the last sentence, namely:

Entry of a great power into one’s own area is a matter of strategic importance.

He did not spell out the point, but that statement is quite true. It does not matter what the great power is, whether it be the United States of America or the Soviet Union. If its sphere of influence or what it sees as its own area- I think that was the term used- is entered, certainly there will be a reaction. So I think it is worth placing on record that there was and is a very distinct difference between the attitudes adopted in this whole matter by the two senior spokesmen for the Government on this issue. Honourable senators will recall that even the Chinese were very cautious; and we know that not much love is lost between China and the Soviet Union at present. The Chinese said that they would boycott the Moscow Games only under certain circumstances. An actual quotation from a newspaper report is:

China says a boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics is reasonable’ and it will shun the Games if the majority of Olympic countries decides to do so.

China will take the same attitude as the majority of the Olympic committees of all countries’, the Chinese National Olympic Committee said in a formal statement issued yesterday.

So even China, a country which one would have expected to go in very hard in its condemnation of the Soviet Union and to take action, also was very cautious and did not commit itself.

I want to refer to statements made by people who I think would be regarded universally as observers of great substance and whose views would be respected all around the world, certainly in what we might call the Western world. I refer to Professor Macmahon Ball and James Reston of the New York Times and George Kennan, the United States diplomat. In an article which Macmahon Ball contributed to the Melbourne Age of 23 January he had this to say:

Mr Fraser is making speeches in a tone which seems designed to arouse alarm and moral indignation; emotions which tend to nourish rigidity and belligerence, not flexibility and accommodation. There is no poison more potent than national self-righteousness for blurring the vision and darkening the judgment; it shuts out all chance of calm calculation of the likely consequences of the choices open to us.

I think that that was most accurately put and was most appropriate in the light of what was being said at that time. Even the former British Conservative Prime Minister, Mr Edward Heath, was reported on 30 January as being very tough in his criticism of Mrs Thatcher’s response to this whole issue. The article states:

  1. . Mr Edward Heath yesterday rejected Mrs Margaret Thatcher’s tough reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan-

The article then went on to make some observations, one of which I thought was very significant. It read:

Mr Heath also pointedly reminded Mrs Thatcher that one consequence of her policies would be that Britain would have to forego much of the attitude it had taken in recent years on human rights.

Britain will be asked to support regimes -

Presumably that was a reference to Pakistan- because of their vulnerability, which do not maintain the standards of the West on human rights. We must not put ourselves in the position of being accused of double talk on this’ he said.

That was said by a former Conservative British Prime Minister, hardly a man who any honourable senator would suggest would have a soft on communism or sympathies for Moscow. Yet his statement was quite clear in its condemnation of the attitude of the British Conservative Government, which was so much like that of the present Australian Government. James Reston, again in an article reported in the Melbourne Age of 29 January, referred to this matter. We must bear in mind that he would be, I suppose, the most senior columnist in the United States, and has been so for some years.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I have dealt with some of the alternative attitudes which have been expressed by various spokesmen around the world in respect of the Afghanistan issue and the response by both the United States Government and the Australian Government. I referred to an article by James Reston in the Melbourne Age of 29 January. Mr Reston made the following observation: a great many people here -

That is in Washington- and in the other allied capitals simply do not share his estimate -

That is President Carter’s estimate- that the Soviets have made a calculated military move in Afghanistan to dominate the oil fields and sea lanes of the Middle East. Nor do they agree with his assessment that this is the ‘greatest threat to peace’ since the last world war.

If you accept this premise, then Carter is not asking for anything like the preparations and sacrifices that will have to be made: and if you don’t accept it, you have to wonder why he didn’t just remind the Soviets of the Eisenhower resolution.

That is another illustration of the thinking of the very well informed observers around the world who do not accept the very strong line which has been taken, in that case by President Carter, and which has been reflected, of course, in so much of what Mr Fraser has said in this country. Was this, in fact, the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War? I would not imagine that anybody who lived through the trauma of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 could possibly believe that what happened in Afghanistan could have anywhere near the significance and potential danger that existed in that particular confrontation. For days- I think it was about a fortnight- the Soviet Union and the United States were virtually eyeball to eyeball, as it is said. I think the world really did hold its breath.

There was a confrontation between these two super-powers which did not at any time occur in respect of Afghanistan.

The same could be said of what happened in October 1973 in the Middle East. During the Arab-Israeli war it was apparent that the Soviets were prepared to deploy airborne forces to assist Egypt at the time when it looked as though it would be overrun by Israeli forces. That did not eventuate either, but again there would have been a direct confrontation. So to suggest that the Afghanistan situation is in that category is, I believe, to stretch one’s imagination to the point of non-reality.

The Prime Minister went overseas. I was glad that he accepted my suggestion some days later that he visit Paris and Bonn. He learned there, especially in Paris, that attitudes were quite different from those he would have expected in Washington or London. Nevertheless, as a result of that visit, he came back obviously a wiser man. As I indicated earlier in my comments, he has had to realise that many of the views which he held dear in January even by February were no longer arguable attitudes to maintain.

Whether there was any great success in that visit is a matter of judgment. Probably it is too early to judge, but I do not think any one would believe that it was the howling success which we in this country were led to believe it was. It was largely ignored by the American Press and to a very large extent it was ignored in the German Press. I had a whole series of cuttings from the German Press sent to me from Bonn. Mr Fraser had two mentions in what must have been two or three dozen cuttings that I received concerning the current international issues. He may feel some sense of satisfaction. I do not question for one moment his right as a Prime Minister to go overseas if he sees fit to do so, but he ought not to go on the basis that he will make some dramatic impact on world affairs. What makes anyone imagine that he can take off out of the blue and have a dramatic impact on world affairs, especially when he comes from what we term a middle power, as Australia is? It just does not happen that way and it will not happen that way. Diplomacy is a slow moving, hard working occupation which people have to work on all the time as full time professionals if they are to make any impact.

After Mr Fraser’s visit to the United States, President Carter called a meeting of foreign ministers of seven nations to discuss the international position as a result of the Afghanistan invasion. Australia was not invited. The excuse for

Australia’s not being invited was that we were not a sufficiently important economic power amongst the western nations to warrant an invitation. What an astonishing proposition! Italy apparently was regarded as being more important economically than Australia. Even France was regarded as being more important. The French, of course, declined; they said they did not want to be in it. Even then, despite my exhortations to the Government to get Australia invited or represented at that conference, I have heard nothing more since. I doubt very much whether the Government made any move at all to see that Australia was invited.

The most reprehensible part of that little episode was the fact that Mr Carter was aware that that meeting was to be called at the time he actually spoke to Mr Fraser but he did not advise Mr Fraser of Australia’s not being invited to it. The only conclusion one can draw is that Australia is still being taken for granted. That is a demeaning position for us to be in in world affairs. The last thing that should occur is for it to be accepted that Australia will do just what other countries may wish it to do. That is abrogating our role in world affairs. For that reason one must place a good deal of the responsibility on the Prime Minister for allowing that position to develop in the first place.

I will deal with two other matters fairly briefly in relation to what Australia may be able to do in this situation. I have already mentioned that there are, I believe, significant differences and divisions between the attitude of the Prime Minister and his Foreign Minister. Perhaps Mr Peacock’s trip to South East Asia was not as spectacular as that of the Prime Minister. Nevertheless I believe that it was a much more fruitful one. He did not go there with the stated intention of telling those nations how the whole system should operate. That was in strong contrast to the intentions of the Prime Minister. I believe that the discussions which took place in the South East Asian nations that the Foreign Minister visited will be of real value to the Australian Government. When he came back he spoke in a very restrained way about the dangers of rearming Pakistan and the effect that would have on India.

We all must realise the very great concern that the Indians have towards any building up of the armaments of Pakistan in view of the long history of conflict between those two countries. We also know that India has some means of influencing Soviet policy because of a fairly close relationship that exists between those two countries. As Mr Heath, the former British Prime

Minister to whom I referred earlier, said, how foolish we would be if we were to embark on a program of giving military support to a regime such as we see in Pakistan.

Have we not learnt our lesson before this, that we do not simply support these regimes out of sheer convenience at a particular time. Mr Fraser ‘s style of what I would call instant Summit diplomacy does not work. That is not to suggest that we should do nothing or that we should simply sit by while actions are taken around the world, actions of which we strongly disapprove. That would certainly apply in the Afghanistan case. Many questions could be asked, and no doubt in the course of this debate over the weeks ahead many will be asked, but those questions will be pointing at the complexity of the issues and the problems about which Mr Fraser especially has so quickly gone out on a limb. It is not the time for thinking about cold war policies. It is not the time for reactions which are based on ideas that are outmoded. It is not the time for automatic acceptance of anybody’s policies, excepting policies which are consistent with the interests of this country. But we can make both a diplomatic and a political contribution to that part of the world in which we are living, especially South East Asia. Also we ought to bear in mind this question of trade with the Soviet Union. If that country is so important as a customer or a potential buyer of so many of our rural and mining products that we cannot afford, financially at least, to alienate and ignore it, should we risk a political and diplomatic breakdown with it by hasty and half-baked posturings.

At this stage I draw to the attention of the Senate a contradiction in the speech that we heard here today. This must surely have escaped the attention of the Prime Minister’s speech writers. On page 8, when speaking about clearly and unambiguously making our messages clear to the Soviet, he said:

Far from breaking off communications, we must improve them.

I share that sentiment. I think that is a sensible idea. But when we turn to page 14 which details the measures which the Government has taken, we find that there are two measures mentioned. Firstly:

The indefinite suspension of all visits by Ministers and senior officials between Australia and the Soviet Union.

How that extends communications between the two countries is beyond me. Secondly:

The indefinite suspension of the periodic consultations conducted by senior representatives of the Australian and Soviet Foreign Ministries.

Perhaps some subsequent speaker on the Government side can reconcile for me how those measures will improve communications with the Soviet. We know the difficulties that any government faces. But nothing can be more absurd than to manufacture difficulties, particularly where there is some domestic political advantage that it is thought may be gained.

The central issue remains, as it has from the beginning and has done for many years, the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States. President Carter made this point very clearly during his State of the Union address two or three weeks ago when he said:

Now, as during the last three and one-half decades, the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union is the most critical factor in determining whether the world will live in peace or be engulfed in global conflict.

Further on he says:

Preventing nuclear war is the foremost responsibility of the two superpowers.

I would suggest that in a nuclear era no one can play politics with security. Again, in a nuclear era there is a diplomatic and political role for medium powers such as Australia to play between the super powers. There is simply no room between the super powers for smaller powers to become militarily involved or to urge either of those powers to harden its respective position. No advantage can possibly be obtained by any of us from such involvement. There is the one important role that we can play around the world diplomatically- not by fly-by-night trips to other countries when it might appear to be convenient- and that is by having a constant attitude of assisting wherever we possibly can in bringing about a better understanding.

It is summed up in an article which I suppose everybody who is interested in this subject should read. I refer to the article by George Kennan, who was a former United States Ambassador in Moscow and originally, of course, the author of the so-called containment policy in the late 40s. He was a man who later changed his attitude towards the Soviet Union and became an advocate of closer contact with the Soviet. George Kennan, who is currently Professor Emeritus of the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, is certainly one of the most influential diplomats in the United States since the Second World War. His article is well worth reading and contains words of wisdom which it is a great pity could not have been read by other people before they sounded off on the subject. In the closing paragraphs of his article he says:

We are now in the danger zone. I can think of no instance in modern history where such a breakdown of political communication and such a triumph of unrestrained military suspicions as now marks Soviet-American relations has not led, in the end, to armed conflict.

The last paragraph reads:

The danger is heightened by the fact that we do not know, at this time, with whom we really have to deal at the Soviet end. If there was ever a time for realism, prudence and restraint in American statesmanship, it is this one. Nothing in the passions of electoral politics could serve as the slightest excuse for ignoring this necessity.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– We have listened to a speech from Senator Wriedt in response to the statement made by Senator Carrick on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in regard to this serious crisis. The tenor of Senator Wriedt ‘s speech seems to have been to defuse the analysis and response to that crisis which has been made by the Government. I stress that it has been a response by the Government because it is not simply a response by the Prime Minister himself; it is a response which has been made by him on behalf of the Government. I am sure that as a member of that Government I am speaking on behalf of all its members who share the same deep concern about the situation, as the statement reveals.

Senator Wriedt has spent a good deal of his speech in quoting various people whom he says, I suppose quite rightly, are accepted as authorities on international affairs. He quoted from George Kennan, and he referred to Professor Macmahon Ball, James Reston, Ted Heath and others. As I said, the object of this all seems to be to provide a different analysis of the crisis with which we are faced. He also sought to divide in some way the views of the Foreign Minister, Mr Peacock, from those which have been expressed by the Prime Minister and presumably those as stated in the statement brought down today.

I return to some of the basic elements of the crisis as the Government sees them and refer not only to some of the statements that have been made by Mr Peacock but also to the views expressed by world leaders. On 24 January Mr Peacock isued a statement in regard to President Carter’s State of the Union message. I do not propose to read the whole statement but I refer honourable senators to it because in that statement Mr Peacock has made perfectly clear his personal support- apart from the Government’s support- for the stance that President Carter enunciated. Mr Peacock said that:

  1. . the address will stand out as an historical statement- one of the most significant delivered by an American president in our time.

Mr Peacock noted some of the major features of the crisis which the world faces as a result of the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. He pointed out: it has involved the first direct use of Soviet force against a non-aligned country, a country outside the Soviet bloc.

He pointed out further:

It has brought Soviet military power into a region which, because of its oil wealth, is of vital interest to the maintenance of the global system.

In his State of the Union message, President Carter said that the action of the Soviet Union had dramatised the vastly increased military power of that nation, a power relentlessly built up during a period when the United States own defence spending was declining in real terms.

Mr Peacock and Senator Wriedt has suggested that the Department of Foreign Affairs has a somewhat different view of the crisis- went on to say:

Those who have spoken of ‘over-reaction’ and ‘hastiness’ have ignored the gravity of these facts.

I would have thought that those views expressed by Mr Peacock on 24 January would have clearly refuted any suggestion Senator Wriedt has made that he may in some way be assessing the crisis in a somewhat different way from that of the Prime Minister and the Government in the statement brought down today.

Unlike Senator Wriedt who referred to the views of a few so-called experts on international affairs I mention views which have been expressed by many nations in regard to this crisis. First and foremost are the views of the members of the United Nations. I do not need to remind the Senate that on 15 January this year, by a vote of 104 to 18, the General Assembly strongly deplored the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. The 1 8 members who opposed it belonged to the East European bloc or were closely related to it. It was a most impressive expression of world opinion in relation to these events.

It is important that I ask the Senate to ponder for a few minutes while I read the expressions of views held by the United Nations. I do not intend to read all the preamble but I do seek the indulgence of the Senate to refer to the main elements of that resolution. The resolution:

  1. Reaffirms that respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State is a fundamental principle of the Chaner of the United Nations, any violation of which on any pretext whatsoever is contrary to its aims and purposes;
  2. Strongly deplores the recent armed intervention in Afghanistan, which is inconsistent with that principle;
  3. Appeals to all States to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence and non-aligned character of Afghanistan and to refrain from any interference with the internal affairs of that country;
  4. Call for the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of the foreign troops from Afghanistan in order to enable its people to determine their own form of government and choose their economic, political and social systems free from outside intervention, subversion, coersion or constraint of any kind whatsoever;
  5. Urges all parties concerned to assist in bringing about, speedily and in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter, conditions necessary for the voluntary return of the Afghan refugees to their homes;
  6. Appeals to all States and national and international organisations to extend humanitarian relief assistance with a view to alleviating the hardship of the Afghan refugees in coordination with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;
  7. Requests the Secretary-General to keep Member States and the Security Council promptly and concurrently informed on the progress towards the implementation of the present resolution;

That is the view of 104 members of the United Nations meeting in the General Assembly on 15 January this year. It is not only that -

Senator Wriedt:

– There is no argument about that.

Senator DURACK:

– I am sure there is not, Senator Wriedt. I felt that after some of the remarks quoted by the honourable senator it was important to reaffirm the overwhelming view of the world community about this action that we are debating this evening. One of the significant features of that vote was that the non-aligned nations voted overwhelmingly- 56 votes to nine- in favour of the resolution. As Mr Peacock pointed out in the statement from which I have quoted, one of the major elements causing concern about and illustrating the gravity of the situation was that this does represent the first, direct use of force by the Soviet Union against a nonaligned country.

Other major views have been expressed. There was a meeting of the Islamic Foreign Ministers on 29 January. That meeting declared the Afghan-Soviet-backed government illegal and called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Another meeting of major importance was the summit meeting between President Giscard d’Estaing of France and Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of West Germany. At the conclusion of that summit meeting they issued a statement in which France and West Germany called for a Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan without delay. Other views which they expressed in that major meeting and other statements have been quoted by the Prime Minister in the statement which has been placed before the Senate. Their analysis of that crisis was that it was a kind which could set in motion a process which, step by step and whatever the intentions may be, would have the gravest consequences for the world. They wished to reaffirm in these circumstances the faithfulness of the two countries for the Atlantic Alliance and their determination to honour the engagements contained in it.

At Question Time today, Senator Wriedt asked about the state of the ANZUS alliance in relation to these events. I think it is important that the Prime Minister has pointed out in his statement that the next meeting of the members of ANZUS has been brought forward and will take place in Washington at the end of this month. It will of course be attended by our Foreign Minister, Mr Peacock.

The expressions of view to which I have referred emphasise significantly to us the correctness of the analysis of the situation which is contained in the Prime Minister’s statement, which we are now debating. There may be different views in assessing whether it is the most dangerous international crisis since World War II. That is the analysis of the Government, one which is fully justified and one, which it is pointed out, is shared by no lesser an authority in Europe than Willy Brandt of West Germany. The important fact is that leaders of so many nations have expressed their concern in the sombre and impressive tones to which I have referred.

In the light of the expression of these views the Government believes that it is a proper moment for the Senate to express its views in relation to the situation. A statement has been made in the Senate on behalf of the Prime Minister. That statement was made by him in the House of Representatives today and a motion was moved there to express the view of the House of Representatives. I therefore move an amendment to the motion before the Senate, which is:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

I move:

The Government believes that a motion in those terms is properly called for so that the Senate, as part of the national Parliament, can express views which clearly are very much in line with and following those views which have been expressed by the United Nations and world leaders about the gravity of the situation.

Senator Wriedt referred to other situations which have occurred from time to time in other parts of the world. He referred to the Tanzanian invasion into Uganda, the Indonesian invasion of Timor and other situations which have arisen. What one cannot overlook in this present crisis is the continuation, virtually since 1939, of Soviet expansion and the steady progress of implementing its grandiose ideas of world domination. One has only to look in broad terms at the record of the Soviet Union since 1939. Let us remember its occupation of the Baltic states- Lithuania, Latvia and later Estonia; its occupation of a portion of Poland when Germany invaded in September 1939; and, after World War II, its occupation of eastern Europe and its establishment of hegemony over those vast areas of Europe which hitherto had comprised a number of independent States.

That policy was pursued by the Soviet Government in 1956 with its suppression of the Hungarian revolution, which was one of the first efforts by people who had been oppressed by the Soviet Union to regain their liberty. That revolution was put down brutally. The same thing occurred in 1968 in Czechoslovakia after the Prague spring, under Prime Minister Dubcek. There had been efforts by a communist government, to reform, but in 1968 the Russian policy was to put down those efforts. The attempt to allow this new version of communism to flower was not agreeable to the Soviet leadership and was put down brutally by the invasion of that country by Russian forces. It continues. In 1975 there was Russian support for the North Vietnamese offensive against the South. There was the Angolan crisis in 1975-6. Finally, last year, there was the Russian backed Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea.

The Russians have followed this policy over some 40 years, and one must see the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union as simply a part of that policy of expansion which has been revealed over those years. That is why one must be so concerned, and why the Government is so particularly concerned, about this event. It has some new and even more serious features about it because it is the first time that the Soviet Union has nakedly and unashamedly moved against a non-aligned country. The other feature is that the Soviet power has moved steadily closer to the oil supplying regions of the world, and towards supplies of countries of importance to Australia, such as Japan.

In these circumstances, is it good enough for an Australian government or parliament simply to express its abhorrence of such actions ana to call upon the Soviet Union to withdraw? I was very interested to hear Senator Wriedt ask: What can Australia do?’ After the performance of many of the Opposition senators at Question Time today, it surprised me when he said that it would be wrong for Australia to do nothing. Apart from suggesting unspecified diplomatic moves he did not suggest any particular actions which Australia could take. I think it important that those matters be considered in this debate.

In early January this year the Government met to consider the situation of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and this is what it was faced with: Were we simply to join in the United Nations resolutions or to express our own opposition? Were we simply to leave it at that, or were we not compelled to take some action and to do more than simply express a view? The Government decided that simply expressing a view was not good enough. It was a situation of sufficient gravity and importance as to call upon us to do something further than simply express a view or to participate in a vote in the United Nations or elsewhere. It was out of that atmosphere of deep concern that the trips of the Prime Minister to the United States and to Western Europe and the trips of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to countries in South East Asia and South West Asia arose. I think it was important that the Government should respond directly in that way and discuss with our allies, our friends and certainly those with whom we are closely associated the crisis that has developed.

The statement which has been placed before the Parliament today outlines, in a very important way, the reaction that came from the initiative that was taken. But more importantly the Australian Government felt that some specific action was required, not just in words, not just in discussions with others, to bring home to the Soviet Union, as effectively as we could the concern that was felt. That is why the statement that we have before us has set out in some detail the various steps that the Australian Government has taken. I do not propose to read through all of them again. They are set out in the statement and have been stated on other occasions. There has been criticism, and undoubtedly there can be criticism of this or that step. This afternoon Senator Button, I think, sought by a question he asked to obtain a little political mileage in respect of one particular step. Of course honourable senators might pick out one thing and say: Well, what good is that one thing going to do? What good is this other thing going to do?’ The important thing is that the Government has taken a number of quite rational and concerted steps which, looked at as a whole, must be considered to be an indication to the Soviet Government of our very deep concern. This has not just been expressed in words. We have been prepared to take action- action which in some cases certainly will be to our disadvantage.

We have supported the United Nations action in relation to grain sales to the Soviet Union. We have reviewed Soviet shipping activities in Australia. We have suspended the two fishing feasibility projects involving Soviet participation and we have withdrawn approvals previously given. It is not true to say that the Australian Government has not taken action which could well be to our disadvantage in some economic respects. It is quite false to give the impression, which apparently the Opposition is seeking to do now, that the Australian Government is not prepared to take any action from which we could suffer some economic disadvantage, but only asks athletes or a few students to suffer the consequences and bear the brunt of our action. That simply is not true. A fair-minded assessment of all the actions which we have taken, and which are set out in this statement, I think refutes the views that the Opposition is trying to give.

Briefly I mention two other matters. One relates to the steps which Australia believes it can take, which we have taken and which we will maintain. But overwhelmingly more important than any of these matters is the boycoit of the Olympic Games. The Australian Government believes- and it now has the support of 36 national governments of the world- not only that it is completely inappropriate that the Olympic Games should be held in the capital of a country which behaves in this manner in Afghanistan, but also that the most effective way of making the abhorrence of the nations of the world known to that Government would be by boycotting the Games in the capital of that country. That is the basic reason why the Australian Government has taken its stand and will adhere to that stand.

Another major practical step which the Government has taken is in relation to defence decisions set out in the Prime Minister’s statement. Again I do not propose to go through them in any detail, but I emphasise them and refer honourable senators participating in this debate to them because they have some very important consequences. If we are talking about not being prepared- as the Opposition says- to make sacrifices, the defence initiatives which we are to take will be at considerable cost to Australian taxpayers as the Prime Minister’s statement sets out. We will gradually increase defence spending over a five-year period to about 3 per cent of gross domestic product in 1984-85. The increase projected for the next financial year in real terms is 5.5 per cent. We will build up the capital expenditure as a proportion of total defence expenditure from the present figure of about 15 per cent to over 25 per cent. The present capital expenditure figure is a considerable increase on the 6 per cent of total defence expenditure in the latter years of the Labor Government.

There will be a very real increase not only in defence spending but also in spending resulting from our defence posture and our defence position. As I said, the statement sets out in detail where those elements will be. One of the most important areas, of course, will be an increase in surveillance in the Indian Ocean with the upgrading of the HMAS Stirling naval facility at Cockburn Sound. We will be base porting ships of the Royal Australian Navy there and ultimately have that as their home port. Over this period housing will be provided for those who are to serve there.

I believe that the matters to which I have drawn the attention of the Senate- the views of world leaders in particular- accord entirely with the Government’s assessment of this crisis. They accord with and are supported by the views of the nations in the United Nations. We have taken practical steps to give effect to those views. We have made hard decisions in support of our views. We believe that the people of Australia are deeply concerned by what has happened. I think that nothing has impressed me more over recent weeks than the concern and the sober and sombre feelings that individual Australians have felt and expressed over this period. They expect leadership from the Government. I believe that they are getting it and will continue to get it from the Government as the Prime Minister’s statement which we have before us makes amply clear. I believe that in addition to that statement this Parliament should add its weight and authority by voting for the amendment which I moved to the motion.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is inexcusable. It is a monstrous action of imperialism which the Soviet Government has taken against a neighbouring country. I do not believe that anybody would criticise an Australian government or the government of any democratic country for taking strong action to show its disapproval and condemnation of what the Government in Moscow has done. It is an outrageous piece of behaviour. It is a piece of the most rampant aggression that one could imagine. What has happened is that a small country neighbouring the Soviet Union has been invaded. The people of that country are being subjected to brutality and armed intervention and are being placed in the position where they will be. reduced to an appendage of the Soviet Union, a colony of the Soviet Union. It is an action which is contrary to principles of international law and contrary to principles devoted to the preservation of world peace.

I believe that the statement which was made this month at the meeting of the Socialist International, the international body of social democratic and socialist parties throughout the world- an organisation to which the Australian Labor Party is affiliated- is a completely appropriate one. It states that the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan has violated international law as well as the sovereignty and right of selfdetermination of that country. The Socialist International condemns the intervention of the Soviet armed forces in Afghanistan and calls upon the Soviet Union to withdraw all of its troops from that country. I think that is the only position to which any civilised person who believes in democracy and in equitable and just relations between nations would subscribe. Condemnation can be the only consequence of the Soviet action in Afghanistan.

However, I venture to disagree with the statement which occurs in the speech of the Prime

Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and which is repeated in the amendment to the motion now before the Senate which has been moved by Senator Durack; that is, that this is probably the most dangerous international crisis since World War II. I do not think that one needs to have a very keen memory to recollect a number of episodes of a similar nature which have been just as dangerous to world peace. There was the Soviet missile crisis in Cuba in 1962. There was the Berlin blockade. There is the situation in the Middle East. There was certainly the Vietnam war. There was the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Hungary.

I agree with that part of the Prime Minister’s statement, however, which says that in all of these dangerous events that have taken place the hand of the Soviet Union can be seen either directly or indirectly. I think that we would be deluding ourselves and being very careless of our own future if we did not recognise the fact that the Government of the Soviet Union is bent upon carrying out those policies which it has clearly expressed on so many occasions; that is, that the only future it can see for the world is one in which the world is dominated by the Government of the Soviet Union. I do not believe that that can be denied. I believe that the Soviet Government is committed to this policy. Not only has it said so but also it has shown repeatedly in deeds that that is its policy. It has shown it once again only over the past month or so in Afghanistan.

But that is only one episode in a long chronicle of similar actions of the Soviet Government. What could have been more brutal than the smashing of the Government and the people of Hungary. In 1956 the Soviet Union destroyed a communist government in Hungary. By devious and dishonest devices it lured the former Prime Minister of Hungary, Imre Nagy, away from the refuge which he had found in Bucharest and murdered him. That is the only way to describe what happened. They did not try him; they murdered him. Who can excuse what happened in Czechoslovakia? Exactly the same sort of thing happened when the Soviet Union invaded that country and destroyed another government- a government led by members of the Czechoslovak Communist Party. It has done almost precisely the same thing inside Afghanistan to which it claims to have been invited by the Government of that country. As one writer recently put it, the Government of the Soviet Union is apparently trying to have us believe that the President of Afghanistan invited it to come into the country so that it could murder him. That is, in fact, what did happen. The very President who was supposed to have invited in the Soviet Union was subsequently killed. I imagine that even the most ardent advocate of Soviet policy would find that a little difficult to accept.

The reliance of the Soviet Union on the Government in Afghanistan I believe was of the same order as the reliance of the American and Australian Governments on the Government of South Vietnam to say that it had invited them to send American and Australian troops into Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s. Again it was a bogus government which invited people to come in. The people who wanted to be invited instructed that government to invite them to come in. I am not- I hope that no one thinks that I am- trying to equate the United States with the Soviet Union. I am not. I believe that the United States frequently acts foolishly and occasionally acts malevolently. But I do not believe that a consistent pattern of imperialism is shown by the United States in the same way that it is shown by the Government of the Soviet Union.

I do not believe, if I may express my own view, that some long term strategic plan of the Soviet Union is involved in this invasion of Afghanistan. I do not believe that it is endeavouring to occupy Afghanistan in order to get into Iran. I would have thought that if it wanted to get into Iran it would have gone straight into Iran. I do not believe that the Soviet Union would be much better off by trying to get into Iran by invading Afghanistan than it would had it just stayed on its own borders, if that was what it wanted to do. I do not say that in any way to excuse the action of the Soviet Government.

If one were to study the recent record of the Soviet Government I do not think that one could avoid the conclusion that the people who control that country at present are people who have a rather strange understanding of Marxism.

They subscribe to a special form of adaptation of Marxism. I do not think any of them, for example, would endorse Marx’s own words that Marxism is not a dogma but a method. I do not think that is a point of view to which Mr Brezhnev would find it very easy to subscribe. I think that many of them are the same sort of people who, if they had been living in the United States, would have taken a job with the General Motors or General Electric companies and would now be president of General Motors or General Electric or would be prominent in the Mafia. Nonetheless, their actions and this sort of pseudo-Marxism to which they purport to subscribe in the same way as European imperialists of the 19th century maintained that they were taking up the white man’s burden and acting on behalf of Christianity do have, in the minds of many of their own people and certainly in their own minds, the support of some sort of world view, some world philosophy of power, which they describe as Marxism-Leninism. The danger- this makes them much more dangerous than many other imperialists of the past- is that the point of view which they put forward is one which in certain circumstances can be of considerable appeal to people who believe that they are being oppressed by somebody else within their own country. That is the very great strength which they have despite all of their other manifest weaknesses.

Much talk has been made over recent years of the concept of detente. Apparently through using a foreign word to describe this state of mind those who talk frequently about detente believe that to this word has been ascribed some magical quality like using the word ‘abracadabra’. If I may be pardoned from remembering my schoolboy French, the word ‘detente’ means relaxation. The whole concept of detente was one of relaxation. The leaders of the major powers realised that if countries were to continue along the mad arms race which they had been following, if they were to continue to get themselves involved in disputes over such matters as transport into or out of West Berlin, this could well lead to a third world war and therfore there ought to be some relaxation of these tensions by having consultations between the major powers and by reducing the rate of increase in armaments. This, itself, is desirable, but the Soviet Government appears to adopt the position that detente is a one-sided operation, that detente means disarmament by Western countries without any parallel disarmament by the Soviet Union.

Indeed, if anybody were to be so misguided as to think that when the leaders of the Soviet communist party talk about detente they in fact mean some substantial change in their own behaviour one has to look only at their own record since the concept of detente became so popular. What has been their record on human rights during that period? What has been their record with regard to the Helsinki Accords? They have consistently and without any apology to anybody breached those Accords with regard to the treatment of their own citizens.

If the Soviet Union were genuinely interested in a real relaxation of tension and not just in a relaxation of vigilance by those whom it regards as its opponents it would never have dreamed of invading Afghanistan. Whatever the difficulties may have been in Afghanistan it would have conferred with countries such as the US and other Western nations before it took that step of invading Afghanistan. Clearly, if detente means that there is a general and genuine relaxation, that there is a braking put on the arms race, that those tensions which can arise should be avoided, nothing could be more calculated to destroy detente than would be that invasion of Afghanistan.

One of the things that have to worry one about the approach of the Government to this question is the sudden concern which it has shown with regard to Afghanistan. I do not want to labour again the matter which I raised by way of a question today. But it may be remembered that in September of last year I asked the Government whether it was aware of the fact that a considerable number of Soviet troops were in Afghanistan and what it proposed to do about that matter, if anything. The answer which came back a month later was that the Government was concerned about the presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan. One would have thought that a vigilant government, being aware of and concerned about the presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan, would have done something about it, that a really vigilant, competent government concerned about the presence of Soviet troops in another country at least would have spoken to somebody else about it, at least would have spoken to the United States of America and certainly would have expressed some dismay to the Government of the Soviet Union. But according to Senator Carrick today he is not aware whether this happened but he will ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) to find out whether something was done.

This, I am afraid, does not inspire tremendous confidence in the manner in which the Government has been handling this matter. One would have thought that a Government which has reacted so strongly to the very recent events in Afghanistan which are merely a continuation of what has been happening earlier would have been seriously concerned about the matter before it reached the condition it is now in. I think that the general air of laissez faire which the Government seems to have adopted about this matter until it suddenly became the live issue that it is at the present time leads one to have some doubts about the bone fides of the Government in the long term in the approach that it has taken to this question.

Any opposition to the actions of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan must be consistent and principled. It is very difficult to support the proposition that the Government is behaving in a bona fide manner in condemning the invasion by one big country of a smaller country when it is the case of the Soviet Union’s invading Afghanistan if that government has no serious opposition at all to a similar episode which took place near our shores not very long ago. I refer to the Indonesian invasion of Timor. I am certainly not saying that in a global sense the Indonesian invasion of Timor is as serious as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Senator Primmer:

– It was to the Timorese, though.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Yes, I agree. It is certainly just as serious to those people who have been killed or driven out of their homes and had their independence taken away from them by the Indonesians as it is to those people of Afghanistan who suffered a similar fate at the hands of the Russians. I am not saying that I believe that Indonesia has either the will or the ability to present the sort of menace to world peace which is posed by the Soviet Union and, for that matter in a global sense, the action of the Soviets in Afghanistan is certainly more serious than what the Indonesians have done in Timor.

There is an old saying which those of us who were once law students may remember and that is that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. One is not coming to equity with clean hands if one is condemning what the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan but is quite oblivious to what the Indonesians did in Timor. A consistent principled position has to be adopted on these matters. All of us here are very concerned, I suppose, about what the Soviet Union will do. But there are other people in other parts of the world to whom we ought to be making some sort of an appeal who perhaps do not see these distinctions. Many of these people will be saying that this is all phoney, that this is humbug and that the Soviet Union has done in Afghanistan only what the Indonesians did in Timor with the approbation of, or if not with the approbation certainly without any serious condemnation by, Western countries such as the United States and Australia.

Senator Knight:

– That is not accurate. The Government took a strong stand.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I do not think that the Government ever threatened to take away the entitlements of any Australians who were to study in Indonesia. Certain remarks were made but, if Senator Knight is of the opinion that the Government took just as strong a position on the

Indonesian occupation of Timor as it has taken on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, his recollection of those events is considerably different from my recollection. In fact, certainly some remarks were made but I cannot recollect the Prime Minister reading a long statement in the House of Representatives about the iniquities of the Indonesians in Timor in the way he has done on this occasion. I am not saying this in order to argue that the Prime Minister should not have made a strong statement about what the Soviet Union has done in Afghanistan. I am just saying that it would have been much more convincing and would have shown evidence of considerably more principle if the statements that he had made about the presence of Indonesia in Timor had borne some resemblance to the strength of the statements he has made about the presence of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

All of this shows the general dithering qualities which Western countries appear to have been showing in their foreign policy over the past few years. Seeing that we are debating a statement relating to a country in the vicinity, I do not think that anything illustrates better the lack of purpose of Western foreign policy than the events that have been taking place in Iran. Anybody who remembers what happened in the 1950s will recollect that at that time the United States Central Intelligence Agency- as I have said before I am not one of those who sees members of the CIA under everybody’s beditself acknowledged that it played a very important part in the removal of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Dr Mossadegh. I think it is quite beyond dispute. Everybody concedes that the United States was responsible for the removal of a democratic government. Subsequent to the removal of Dr Mossadegh the Shah, that reigning monarch of the ancient dynasty which began in 1915, returned to his old homestead where he proceeded to buy aeroplanes with gold baths and taps in them and to export large quantities of hard currency into various parts of the world as far away from the Iranian people as he could get them. It was only early in 1978- about two years ago- that President Carter went to Iran. When he was there he commented on the splendid record of the Shah, on what a marvellous ally he was to the United States of America, how Iranians and Americans would be marching on hand in hand together to the same destiny with the Shah and the President of the United States keeping in step. We now find that when the Shah is removed from office and from some of the assets which he once possessed the United States, having made all these extravagant comments about his virtues and the desirability of continuing him in that high office he held, now even refuses him permission to take up permanent residence in the United States when he is a refugee. We find that the United States Government- I agree that there are terrible difficulties when a number of its citizens are imprisoned in Tehran and facing at least the possibility of being in an even worse position than they are at the present time; certainly nobody could envy any President of the United States having to deal with a situation like that- is lending some sympathetic words to the thought that an international commission ought to be established to investigate the Shah’s crimes. While we are on the subject of boycotts, Senator Gietzelt, one or two others and I engaged in a sort of unilateral boycott of the Shah’s luncheon when he was present in this Parliament House. I certainly have no high regard for the Shah. I think he was an old thief and a cowardly old thief.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator WHEELDON:

-As he is no longer a head of state, Mr President, I think I can reflect on him. He is a cowardly old thief. As he boarded his plane with his gold baths and gold taps he said to Dr Baktiar, whom he had recently released from prison in order to appoint him as Prime Minister ‘Carry on’. He is a man who is not worthy of a great deal of respect. Nonetheless I suggest that when a commitment is made to somebody one is stuck with that commitment. It is of no use finding out after the Shah has been removed by the people of his country that he is no good. If undertakings were given to the Shah by the United States Administration while the Shah appeared to be doing well then I believe that the United States was obliged to live up at least in part to those undertakings when the Shah got into difficulties. It is because of a consistent pattern of behaviour like this by Western countries of supporting people until it gets too tough and then abandoning them- supporting people who very often never should have been supported in the first place- that Western foreign policy is in such disarray at the present time and events such as those which took place a couple of months ago in Afghanistan were able to take place. Nobody knows where they are when they are dealing with Western countries. People do not know what Western countries are going to do next. That is one of the reasons why countries such as France pursue an independent foreign policy and do not wish to get themselves too tied with countries like the United States and Australia. They know that when the crunch comes it may be highly unlikely that they will be able to depend on such countries.

I think that another example of the general dithering of this Government and of Western countries generally is to be found in southern Africa at the present time. I do not want to rake up a whole lot of ashes about whether the internal settlement in Rhodesia should or should not have been accepted, but one would have thought that -

Senator Peter Baume:

– You have dragged Senator Sheil into the chamber.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I have brought Senator Sheil in, yes, but Senator Sheil and I differ. He supports Mr Smith and I support Bishop Muzorewa.

Senator Puplick:

– I think you are both going to lose.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Yes, I agree. It so happens that I agree with Senator Puplick that they are both going to lose. I think that the consequence of Bishop Muzorewa ‘s losing is that there will be a cataclysm in Rhodesia. I think that will be the consequence of their losing. I think that a further consequence of their losing will be that it will be virtually impossible to get any sort of peaceful settlement in southern Africa. Senator Puplick may or may not be pleased with all this; I do not know. But I would have thought that if there had been some sort of long term view about what was going to happen in southern Africa some consideration might have been given to what was going to happen if Mugabe wins the next election or if Mugabe loses the next election and then decides to carry on armed resistance to whatever government happens to be elected within Rhodesia. No consideration has been given to these matters. As far as one knows- certainly we have been told nothing about this- the Prime Minister -

Senator Button:

– Our Prime Minister has given a lot of attention to getting Mr Mugabe elected.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am not quite sure what our Prime Minister has been trying to do. I do not wish to belabour the Prime Minister unduly. All I wish to say about the Prime Minister is that he and his Government in common, I must say. with most other Western countries have set a course of events in train in southern Africa without, it seems, having any concept whatsoever of what is likely to be the consequence of their actions and without having any plans about what they are going to do if everything blows up in southern Africa the way it gives every indication at the present moment of doing. I merely mention that as an indication of the general dithering and dereliction of attention to these matters which have been shown by Australia together with a number of other Western countries.

It would seem to me that if we are to oppose the presence of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which we certainly ought to be doing, we ought to be doing it on the basis of having some clear idea of what it is that we are putting to the world as to what sort of society we wish to see. We cannot merely say that the Soviet Union was wrong in invading Afghanistan, which it was, without saying that we have some general regard for the question of human rights throughout the whole world. I remember not so many years ago talking to a man who was a refugee from Mozambique. He was a prominent Portuguese who was involved in the revolutionary movement in Mozambique. At that rime he was in fact working for the Moscow Narodny Bank in London. There was no secret of the fact that considerable assistance was being given by the Soviet Union to the Frelimo movement. He was certainly not a communist. I do not think he was even a socialist or a social democrat. He was a sort of liberal nationalist. I remember asking him why it was that he, with his views, was so closely associated with the Soviet Union. His answer was: ‘Because it is only the Soviet Union which is giving us any support; nobody else is supporting us against the Portuguese colonialists’ who were very badly treating the inhabitants of Mozambique at that time- ‘it is only the Soviet Union who is doing it’.

One of the reasons the Western position has become so weakened over the past couple of decades is that the Western powers have been prepared to prop up almost anybody merely on the grounds that they were anti-Soviet or, as it happened until a few years ago, anti-Chinese. That is why we got ourselves tied up with ridiculous figures such as Air Vice-Marshal Ky, General Somoza and the Shah of Persia. In the long run that did not pay at all. The only thing that would have paid would have been if we had shown that we were as interested in the human rights of the people living in those countries as the Soviet Union pretends to be. I do not believe that the Soviet Union is interested in the human rights of the people of those countries. But if a person is living in an oppressive society and only one major power is supporting him, naturally he will extend more friendship towards that major power than towards those major powers who either are doing nothing or, even worse, are aligned with the people who are oppressing him.

For too long that has been the record of the Western countries. Australia has been a party to all of that throughout the whole of the world.

Now we find that a certain groping around is going on, looking for new allies. The Prime Minister and members of the Government parties only a few years ago were telling us we had to fight in Vietnam because the Chinese were coming down to get us. I have referred before and I will refer again to those remarkable illustrated pamphlets which used to be distributed in the electorate of Curtin, where I live. I hate to say this, because I have a high regard for Sir Paul Hasluck, but I must say that even when he was the candidate for that electorate those remarkable illustrated pamphlets showing huge curved red arrows coming down from Peking and being directed at the Royal Freshwater Bay Yacht Club were distributed around the electorate of Curtin.

But now all of that has passed and China has become not just acceptable but indeed desirable. I noticed in one of the Government documents- I forget which one it was- which were being passed around here a reference to the very admirable decisions which had been taken by the Islamic Foreign Ministers Conference. I think the suggestion was that we ought to endorse the decision of the Islamic Foreign Ministers. I certainly do not wish to reflect on anybody’s religion, having none myself. Most of them seem to have very much in common. But I venture to suggest to the Government that suddenly to adopt the Islamic Foreign Ministers or the People’s Republic of China as stalwart upholders of the liberal parliamentary tradition is making a very serious mistake indeed. I do not think that getting rid of the Russians in order to introduce to high office the Ayatollah Khomeini, although from time to time it may seem desirable, will really herald any vast improvement in the living conditions of those people who happen to be subject to his discretion.

I think we have to consider what it is that we are trying to do. Everything else we had tried in the past seems to have failed. We have had all sorts of strange allies, from General Franco to the Greek colonels. None of them have survived. They have all gone. But usually when they have gone the beneficiary has been the Soviet Union. It is a powerful enemy. It is a committed enemy. It is an enemy which is dedicated to the destruction of democratic values. I suggest that we need to have a bipartisan policy on this. The Soviet Union is a danger to us and when it is a danger to the whole life of the nation it is something on which there ought to be a bipartisan policy.

I do not want to get into a discussion about whether we do or do not go to the Olympic Games. But I would have thought that any Prime Minister, any professional politician, would have known that if a proposition that Australia should not go to the Olympic Games were suddenly introduced there would be some division within the Australian community about whether that was a good idea. Only a few years ago we went through the argument about whether politics ought to be introduced into sport and whether South African cricketers and rugby players ought to come to Australia. One does not need to be either Sherlock Holmes or Einstein to work out that if somebody says that a sporting team cannot or should not go somewhere there will be a lot of controversy and a lot of debate about it.

Senator Kilgariff:

– Taiwan.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am not quite sure what the significance of that interjection is so I will pass over it. But one might have expected that in those circumstances the Government, if it were genuinely seeking a bipartisan policy, would have approached the Opposition before making its announcements. It seems to me to be an unreasonable and provocative position to adopt on a matter which is said to be of the utmost national interest- I agree that it is a matter of the utmost national interest- to decide that certain things will be done which, by their very nature, will provoke controversy on a matter in which it is necessary as far as possible to avoid any partisan conflict between the Government parties and the Opposition parties without any steps whatsoever being taken -

Senator Gietzelt:

-Not from Fraser.

Senator WHEELDON:

– Well, no steps whatsoever were taken to ascertain from the Australian Labor Party whether it would be prepared to go along with those proposals; whether there could have been a joint approach on the matter. No effort at all of that kind was made. Therefore one cannot wonder, I think, that there is partisan dispute as a result of the unilateral decision which is being presented to the whole of the Australian people and to the Australian Parliament without there having been any consultation whatsoever with the Opposition parties.

If the Government in future wishes- I believe it should wish- to have a bipartisan and as far as possible uniform approach to foreign affairs insofar as they relate to the increasing expansion of Soviet power and the deliberate policy of the Soviet Government to extend its domination over as much of the world as it can possibly get its hands on, with the ultimate objective of having the lot- I believe there is sufficient evidence to show that that is its objective and its own words bear that out as well- it will have to do two things: First of all, it will have to ask what sort of world it wants to see. Are only some forms of dictatorship bad and other forms of dictatorship not bad? For example, one can take the position of the people of Cambodia at present. Intolerable and wrong as it is that the Vietnamese should be in occupation of that country against the will of the people of Cambodia, certainly without consulting the people of Cambodia- no one could claim that the Vietnamese consulted them and they invited the Vietnamese to come in- it cannot be denied that the position of the people in Cambodia, bad as it may be now, is considerably better than it was when Pol Pot was there. That is not saying very much, but the position certainly is considerably better now than it was then.

The Government has taken no principled position on that. It has not taken a principled position calling for the establishment of a democratic system within Cambodia, using whatever efforts it can to secure that. It has merely said that it would prefer one form of dictatorship, however brutal, because at present it happens to be aligned with the Chinese, who do not have great virtues in themselves other than that they are opposed to the Russians. But the Government has not done any of those things. For that reason there is not any theme or consistency about what it is trying to do. In the same way, if the Government does wish to have that sort of principled, consistent approach, it will have to consult the Opposition. It is no use having an issue which should be leading to the uniting of the country conducted in such a way that it produces divisions within the country.

I do not think that one needs to be unnecessarily suspicious, I do not think that one needs to be unduly partisan or somebody who sniffs out evil where it does not exist, to have some suspicions about the way in which the Government has handled this issue. One cannot help having at least a lurking suspicion, however unbiased one tries to be, that the Government has been looking for an election issue in this matter. Even if it were not looking for an election issue, its conduct has been such that it is only natural that it should give rise to such a suspicion. What was the reason for not consulting the Opposition before it made its announcements about what it intended to do? If the Government is to be serious in future about having a united Australian opposed to adventurism and imperialism by any major power, it wiil have to do that. It is not an issue on which the Australian people ought to be divided; it is an issue on which the Australian people ought to be united.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I take note of Senator Wheeldon ‘s last comments. I think that there is a great deal of wisdom in what he said. On issues such as this there should be bipartisanship to the greatest possible extent and I think that his point was well made. I also refer to another point that Senator Wheeldon made. He said that he did not believe that the Soviet Union had any long term strategic plan. I am inclined to agree with that. I am also inclined to agree with someone- I have forgotten who it was- who recently said that the Soviets follow a policy of opportunism and that, in fact, they are global opportunists. I think that that statement more correctly sums up Soviet foreign policy. Senator Wriedt, in his opening remarks, made the comment that in a debate of this kind we should not seek to be winners or losers. I agree with that comment and hope that the debate will proceed on those lines.

Senator Wheeldon was very scathing in his comments on the Soviet Union and its aggression against Afghanistan. I agree completely with those comments. The issue is not as simple as some people make out; it is very complex. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his statement- I think that Senator Wriedt quoted these remarks- said:

Some commentators have placed heavy emphasis on the defensive concerns of the Soviet leadership in relation to Afghanistan, its worry about the possibility of the collapse of the Marxist regime there and the spread of internal fighting or of Islamic revivalism. I do not discount these elements. They are pan- perhaps an important pan- of the total picture.

I believe that they are a part of the picture although I shall refer in a few minutes to another authority who discounts even those elements and makes the issue even more complex. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union is concerned at the failure of the Marxist Government in Afghanistan to subjugate the Islamic revivalist movement which, from all accounts, was making quite considerable gains. It is very conscious of the 50 million Moslems in the Soviet Union and the spread of the Moslem revivalism into the Soviet Union from Iran or Afghanistan. No doubt this is a concern of the Soviet Union.

That does not alter the fact that what we are witnessing is a flagrant invasion by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of a poor, Third World Islamic nation. This invasion raises serious implications for the world.

Senator Wriedt suggested that there was some over-reaction on the part of the Prime Minister and the Government. I believe that either overreaction or under-reaction is equally dangerous in this type of situation. If the Government has over-reacted, I suggest that Senator Wriedt is under-reacting. As the Prime Minister said, throughout history Afghanistan has not been strategically peripheral or inconsequential. It occupies a pivotal role, historically recognised in the long contest for influence between Britain and Russia. Afghanistan controls the gateways to the Indian sub-continent. We know that for 150 years or more the British tried to prevent the Czars from gaining a warm water port in the Indian Ocean. Their policy in that part of the world in the Afghan wars -

Senator Gietzelt:

– Is that justified?

Senator SIM:

– I am not saying that it is justified. Let me make my speech. I am stating a fact. The British tried to prevent the Czars from obtaining a warm water port. Their policy was directed towards that. What has now happened is that by the occupation of Afghanistan the Soviet Union is very much nearer a warm water port although it is questionable whether that is as important now as it was in those days.

Senator Chipp:

– But you are not saying it is, are you?

Senator SIM:

– No, I am not. I am just raising the point. The Soviets are now in a position to influence areas of instability, for example Baluchistan, which for long has been an extremely unstable area. They are in a far better position now to engage in subversion and cause trouble in Baluchistan. That is an area of tremendous strategic importance. I discount largely the view that this is a move by Russia to take over immediately the oil fields. I do not believe that that is its immediate plan. But if weakness were shown it may be encouraged to move further. However, it will not do so immediately. That is where there is a need for some strength to be shown. The Russians are certainly in a better position to influence events throughout the region. I think that we can expect the Soviet Union to take advantage of this and to create more problems. The whole of the Middle East is an area of instability. I do not think that one could point to a country throughout the Persian Gulf which one could argue as being stable, domestically or internally. No doubt there will be many opportunities for the Russians to advance their interests further.

Senator Wriedt criticised the Prime Minister and said that Australia is not a major power. It is a medium power. It is always very difficult for a medium power to operate. A medium power such as Australia cannot expect to exercise any influence, great or small, upon the super-powers. That is not to say that it should not adopt positive policies in relation to them. It is not to say that its voice should not be heard, as long as we avoid the allegation that Senator Primmer, Senator Mcintosh, and I recently heard about a certain country in South East Asia being a little country with a big mouth. Australia has to avoid being accused of being a little country with a big mouth.

Senator Gietzelt:

– That describes your Prime Minister, doesn ‘t it?

Senator SIM:

– No, it does not. It might describe one of Senator Gietzelt ‘s former prime ministers if he wants to be political. I do not want to be political. This is too serious a matter to engage in smart political comments such as that. We have to avoid that charge being levelled against us but, at the same time, we must be positive in our attitudes to situations which directly or indirectly affect our interests. There can be no denying that the situation in Afghanistan indirectly affects Australia’s long term interests. To an extent it alters the strategic balance. That must be a matter of concern to Australia. As I said, I do not wish to engage in politics. Foreign policy is too important an area to be made a domestic political issue. I noted that a very senior member of the Opposition, Mr Keating, is alleged to have asserted that the Afghanistan crisis is not our worry and that we should leave it to the big powers. I suggest that Afghanistan is our worry and it is proper for us to assert our views. Our worry is any threat to stability, particularly in such a sensitive and potentially unstable area as West Asia and the Middle East. Any events there, because of the oil position and trade links, could threaten Australia’s future.

Senator Chipp:

– Can you develop that?

Senator SIM:

– I am just making a statement.

Senator Chipp:

– Economically, strategically or militarily- how is it going to create a threat?

Senator SIM:

– I do not think it takes much imagination. For example, any threat to instability in the oil fields area is a threat to Australia economically. Any threat to trade routes, any situation of the Soviet Union being in a strong position, if it should wish, to interfere with trade routes, and it is in a better position to do so, of course is an indirect threat to Australia’s trade and an indirect threat to the oil supply, not only to Australia but particularly to Japan and Western Europe. Any of these matters are of concern to Australia, and they must be of concern to us.

I mentioned earlier that this is a complex matter. Senator Wriedt quoted James Reston, Professor Macmahon Ball and, I think, Mr Heath, all people whom one recognises as people whose views carry weight. But there is another view which I should like to put. I think it is much in line with what Senator Wheeldon was saying about the Soviet Union, without adding too much weight to it. It appears in the Age, of 2 1 January, which I think is the same date as Senator Wriedt used when he quoted from the Sydney Morning Herald. It is an article by Seweryn Bialer who is the Director of the Research Institute on International Change at the Columbia University. I quote in part from his article as a counter perhaps to the views expressed by James Reston, Professor Macmahon Ball and others:

In the past few years, Soviet behaviour has become more assertive and dangerous, as illustrated by Soviet adventures in Angola and Ethiopia and by the use of military proxies to further Soviet interests.

However, the Soviet decision to invade Afghanistan constitutes a watershed, a qualitatively divergent step in acquiring political power abroad by military means. For the first time, the Soviet Union used its own military forces on a massive scale outside its own satellite empire- the sphere of influence that the Soviets acquired as spoils of victory after World War II. This in itself indicates a new degree of confidence, self-assertiveness and expansionism that would necessitate major reassessment and counter-measures on the part of the Western alliance.

That is the view of somebody of whom I have not heard before, but obviously it is a person of some standing. To complicate the matter still further, in the same issue of the Age we have the views of Beverley Male who is a lecturer in Middle East politics, Faculty of Military Studies, Royal Military College, Duntroon. In this article Dr Male puts the view:

It is a desperate gamble by the Soviet Union to ‘save’ Afghanistan, not from ‘Muslim’ rebels, but from an independent-minded national communist government with no reason to love Moscow.

Russia’s brutal destruction of the regime of President Hafizullah Amin in Afghanistan demonstrates yet again that the USSR will not support foreign communists at the expense of its own national interest.

There again we have a further view as to the motives for the Russian attack on Afghanistan. To further complicate the issue, in the same issue of the Age there is an article by Tyler Marshall, a British journalist, written in Kabul itself. He takes again a different view. He refers to the claim that it is part of the Islamic revival, and says that this is a simplistic view, over-simplified, and is an incorrect analysis of the confrontation. He quotes sources that say: . . that the conflict between Afghanistan’s highly unpopular Marxist regime and the overwhelming mass of the Afghan people that eventually triggered the Soviet invasion, is not one of Communism versus Islam. Instead, it is the result of unsympathetic attempts to thrust sweeping change on the country’s predominantly rural, conservative society in which preservation of centuries-old traditions and noninterference in tribal affairs by any outsiders- even by the central Government- are two of the most cherished tenets of life. lslam is part of the conflict only so far as it is an inseparable part of village life. ‘

So we have the authorities quoted by Senator Wriedt, and then we have three more authorities which further muddy the waters. But whatever the reason or reasons may be, the stark realities are that the Soviet Union, as Senator Wheeldon has said, has engaged in a policy of aggression and has brutally suppressed a once independent nation, a nation which was a non-aligned nation and a Third World country, on the pretence of being invited in. As we know, Amin was alleged to have invited the Soviet Union in. But according to the Soviet Union, it was there four days before the . invitation and, as Senator Wheeldon said colloquially, Amin was then done away with. But today in the mail came an article on events in Afghanistan. I do not know whether anybody has read it. It is from the Soviet Embassy.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I am not on the mailing list.

Senator SIM:

– I will lend the honourable senator my copy. This quotes Mr Brezhnev who said, and I quote from one little sentence:

The actions of the aggressors against Afghanistan . . .

We are not sure who they were, but they were militaristic aggressors- were assisted by Amin who, on seizing power, started cruelly repressing broad sections of Afghan society, party and military cadres, members of the intelligensia and of the Muslim clergy.

As we all know, and as Senator Wheeldon reminded us, in September he asked a question about how many Russian troops or military advisers there were in Afghanistan.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Troops, I called them.

Senator SIM:

– Troops. They are the same thing. Senator Wheeldon asked how many troops there were in Afghanistan. We also know that there were a number of civilian advisers. So at that time when Amin was engaged in these repressive actions he was being supported no doubt by Soviet troops and Soviet civilian advisers. I think if the Russian Embassy and Mr Brezhnev expect us to believe this sort of tripe they must think we all came down in the last shower. There is no question that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has brought almost universal condemnation. One wonders, whatever the reasons were, whether indeed the Soviet Union miscalculated particularly the Third World and Islamic reaction, or did it expect it and think the price was worth paying? The answer to this we do not know. Perhaps we will never know.

I should like to turn very briefly to the question of Australian reaction, and particularly to the question of the Olympic Games. Before doing so, I should like to make a comment about those who advocate economic sanctions, as some do. I agree with Senator Wriedt. Economic sanctions have never proved successful. Assuming they were successful I would question the belief that that is the type of action we should take against the Soviet Union. We do not seek the economic destruction of the Soviet Union. Quite apart from its economic effects, it would also create a more dangerous situation within the Soviet Union which could well force the Soviet leadership to strike out in all directions. I believe that any proposals for economic sanctions- I do not think that there are any serious ones- should be resisted. But I believe that the Olympic Games is another matter.

I initially opposed any boycott of the Olympic Games. But I have been converted on the basis that it is the only step that one can see that is effective and that could bring home to the Russian people this world condemnation. The Olympic Games have been held up in Russia as the greatest event. As the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said:

The Russians have been quoting it as in support of their foreign policy.

For 12 months or more there has been constant propaganda. If it were brought home to the Russians that a significant number of countries would boycott the Olympic Games, it might be the only way of making the Russian people, who would not know of it of course, aware of United Nations’ decisions. On 23 January, Mr Hayden was interviewed on the radio program AM. He said:

I believe that the Labor Party believes that a boycott supported by a majority of the countries of the world could be effective and could have a helpful psychological impact on the Soviets, making it quite clear to them that their expeditionary aspirations and behaviour will not be tolerated by the rest of the world. But an effective boycott will require the support of a majority, a clear majority, of the countries of the world. It will be ineffective if only two or three or half a dozen countries, no matter how powerful they might be, support it and the rest of the world participates.

It does appear that at least some 36 countries have indicated their support for a boycott. Thirty-six countries represent a fairly effective force in the world. One would hope that others may join the band. There is no use arguing today that politics and sport do not mix. As far as the Russians are concerned, they are indivisible. It is difficult to believe today that sporting events create international goodwill. Even cricket seems to be creating international divisions. I came across an interesting article in the Australian of Monday, 18 February, written by Robert Moss from London. It is headed ‘KGB chief admits Games are ripe for spy recruiting’. It is a very interesting article that I commend to Senator Wheeldon, if he has not read it.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I have read it.

Senator SIM:

– I thought you probably had. It refers to a KGB general with the name of Loshkin, who with two KGB colonels has been touring the Western European capitals. The article states that General Loshkin: has told Western security officials, with brutal frankness, that the KGB and the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) will take whatever ‘pre-emptive action’ they think necessary to prevent any show of opposition to the regime- or sympathy for persecuted dissidents- by foreign visitors, who the Russians still hope will flock to Moscow.

Keeping politics out of sport means, to the KGB, that only one brand of politics will be allowed to surface: Soviet-style socialism.

The article goes on: the Olympics have nothing to do with freedom of expression’. General Loshkin told West German questioners that if freedom of expression was tolerated, it could lead to outbreaks of terrorism’. He promised that ‘inflammatory speeches or gestures that could lead to political disturbances would be crushed with maximum force. ‘

The article further states:

Those who still nurture the hope that the Moscow Olympics might offer some slender chance of lighting a torch to freedom in the Soviet capital would do well to take note of these off-the-record remarks of General Loshkin, as reported in Bonn.

The article goes on to report that they hope to recruit spies by their well known means. This raises new questions as to the suitability of Moscow as a site for the Olympic Games and the use that the Russians would make of the Games to further their own ends. It is because of these considerations that I have changed my mind and now believe that, if a boycott can be made to work it would be probably the most effective way of bringing home to the Russians the United Nations view.

Senator McLaren:

– And wool and wheat and rutile? Why don’t you go the whole way? You are as weak as water- the whole lot of you.

Senator SIM:

– Don’t be silly. Senator McLaren obviously wants to place a trade embargo on Russia. If he is in favour of a trade embargo, let him get up and say it. I wish to conclude by referring to another situation that I hope will not be forgotten; that is the situation in Kampuchea. While it does not possess the immediate dangers of super power confrontation, nevertheless, the situation in Kampuchea remains an area of considerable danger. Last week I was able to visit the Thai-Kampuchean border with Senator Primmer and Senator Mcintosh. The involvement of China, Vietnam and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in this area does pose quite serious problems to international stability. At the moment it seems to present an insoluable problem. Our attention must not be directed away from this situation, or from the tremendous human problems that exist. A visit to the refugee camps on the border and across the border leads one to hope that there will not be a complete pre-occupation with events in Afghanistan and the tremendous human problems with refugees, but that we will still remember the situation which exists so much closer to our own shores, particularly that we will not lose interest in the humanitarian problems. Discussions with the Association of South East Asian Nation countries show that they all view Afghanistan with grave concern. While they have a great pre-occupation, naturally, with the situation on the Thai-Kampuchean border, they also link events in Afghanistan with events in Vietnam. If the Australian Government is expressing its concern, I can assure honourable senators that the ASEAN countries are equally concerned, despite the events so close to them on the Kampuchean border, with events in Afghanistan,

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– It is with some regret that I enter this debate because I find that I cannot support all of the Government’s actions and proposals in its response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It would be my wish, if it were possible, to enable the Government to go into the world forum and community with a united voice of the Australian people supporting its stance, policies and proposals. As reported in Australia’s leading regional daily, the Advocate, published on the north-west coast of Tasmania, on 3 1 January, I said:

Australians should join in a united protest against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Appeasement of an aggressor is always dangerous and a failure in the face of the most aggressive dictatorship in the world would be doubly suicidal for small nations.

I went on to say:

I am sure that the whole community would be prepared to shoulder the cost to the economy of disrupted trade, so long as the disruption was the result of a consistent Government policy.

I am afraid that instead of a consistent government policy we have a contradictory, divisive complex of proposals which are diverting the Australian people from presenting a united and principled response to this Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Let me make clear my position and the position of the Australian Labor Party. It is one of absolute, unequivocal condemnation of the Russian Government for the sending of its troops into Afghanistan in order to suppress the people there and to install a puppet government more agreeable to Russia’s plans to pacify that area on its southern border. It has reduced what was a sovereign independent state to the status of a colonial vassal. It has served notice on the world community that it is not content with the subjugation of eastern Europe in order to secure it against the possibility of invasion via the historically used routes through Europe. For the first time it has sent massive numbers of Russian troops into an area outside the eastern European theatre. In doing so it has given an insight into the new forces in the Politburo that are now determining policies as Mr Brezhnev and his colleagues come to the end of their careers in charge of government policy in the Soviet Union.

I applaud the Australian Government for being one of the 104 nations that supported the United Nations resolution condemning the aggression in Afghanistan. No Australian could do better than to adopt as his or her own view the wording of that resolution. I think that well over a two-thirds majority of the United Nations- 104 member nations- called for the immediate unconditional and total withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan in order to enable its people to determine their own form of government and choose their economic, political and social systems free from outside intervention, subversion, coercion or constraint of any kind whatsoever. I have no hesitation in totally identifying the Australian Labor Party with that vote of the United Nations and I applaud the Australian Government’s participation in and support for that resolution.

That resolution was the correct diplomatic answer to the invasion by Russia. It was a humiliation of that super power at the hands of a great cross-section of the world community of nations. It included the non-aligned nations and must have been a severe rebuff to the leadership of Cuba, which was one of the minority of 18 nations which voted against the condemnation of

Russian imperialist aggression. The rejection implied in that resolution goes to the claim by the Soviet Union that it had invaded Afghanistan at the request of the Government of Afghanistan. That is an absurd suggestion. As was pointed out by previous speakers, it is highly unlikely that President Amin, the most auspicious victim of the invasion, would have invited Soviet troops into his capital. In other words, the Soviet Union lost the propaganda battle over Afghanistan within three weeks of the invasion. Australia is right to be a part of that condemnation. It added its voice in the world community to the widespread condemnation of the invasion. I believe that we might have gone a little further in diplomatic terms. We could have reduced the number of Russian diplomats accredited to the embassy in Canberra. Our diplomatic response was correct and probably sufficient.

The question then arises of what further steps Australia should take in a political, practical manner. Once again, Australia did the correct thing in supporting its major ally, the United States, in ensuring that there was no filling of the shortfall in grain supplies to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics resulting from the embargo by the United States Government of the 17 million tons of grain destined for the USSR, particularly to feed its livestock. In guaranteeing not to make up that shortfall Australia is acting as it ought to act, in proper, practical and political support of an ally in the commercial trading field where we could help. According to Senator Durack- this is where I disagree with the Government- other steps were needed to express what he called our deep concern. On page 14 of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), one finds a very threadbare, flimsy, skimpy list of other actions undertaken by the Australian Government.

As I will point out later, the major possibilities have been put to one side because they would hurt our commercial and trading relations to an unacceptable degree as judged by the Government or at least by the lobbyists who support it. When one looks down that list, at the bottom one comes to a decision not to support the staging of the Olympic Games at Moscow this year unless the Soviet Union withdraws from Afghanistan. Senator Durack indicated that, in his view, not the vote of the United Nations, not the aiding of our ally in its decision not to send grain to the USSR, but the boycott of the Olympics was the overwhelmingly most important step that Australia could take in the community of nations to express its abhorrence of the invasion by the Soviet Union of Afghanistan. In principle, the proposal is questionable, apart from the matter of its effectiveness. If one looks at history one will recall the 1 936 Berlin Olympics where the most significant event was the winning of various track and field events by Jesse Owens, the Negro athlete from the United States, and the turning aside of Hitler, who would not congratulate him after he had won those events. That historic film clip showing Hitler turning aside and spurning the great black athlete Jesse Owens did more to illustrate the evil nature of Nazi policy in racial matters than would have any boycott of those Olympic Games.

I want to turn directly from the international arena where the Prime Minister, in ids travels around Europe and the United States, has been debasing this sovereign nation’s status. He has been purporting to run messages between the leaders of member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and President Carter. I do not believe that he has been running messages. I do not believe that the United States diplomatic system of gathering intelligence and views from world leaders is so deficient that it needs to send an Australian Prime Minister to gather views and impressions concerning leadership in Europe and particularly in Germany. I believe that Mr Carter simply read Mr Fraser ‘s character perfectly, as a man who needed to be needed, and he was playing on the need for Mr Fraser to have his ego massaged.

I want to concentrate my remarks on the confusions, inconsistencies and hypocricies of this Government’s policies as it affects internal Australian politics and life. I believe that at last the Australian people have had prominently displayed to them the heartless, bullying nature of their Prime Minister. He has no sense of fairness or of the equality of burdens which ought to be borne within the Australian community. He has impetuously sought to saddle our athletes with moral disgrace or discredit for wishing to carry through their years of dedicated training to the natural conclusion of competing against the best athletes in the world in the summer Olympics. It is sad that the athletes should be competing in a world torn by strife and deadly conflicts. One could wish for a return to the early ethos of the original Olympics. One recalls that when the Olympics were originally held in Greece truces were declared by the frequently warring city states to permit athletes and spectators to travel safely to Olympia. In other words the Olympic Games were regarded by the Greeks as an illustration of their superiority over the barbarians. Truces were called to enable up to 40,000 people to travel from the various city states in order to witness the athletic contest. It was a time of peace and the Olympic Games were both a symbol and cause of that time of peace.

That is not the case now; nor is it likely to be. It is wishful thinking that the Olympics will ever be held in the modern world in a situation not containing tension, conflict or even aggressive acts by the participants one against another. The stigma, the disrepute, which the Prime Minister has attempted to attach to our Olympic officials and athletes is, I believe, now returning upon his head, bringing great shame not only on himself but also on the heads of all those members of the Government benches who refuse to repudiate his boycott plan. I repeat that it is his plan; it is clearly not Mr Peacock’s. On 8 January Mr Peacock made it clear in a statement which said:

I am not moved by the suggestion that the Olympic Games should be boycotted. I am not sure the USSR would suffer from a boycott.

That was Mr Peacock’s comment on 8 January. Even Mr Killen, I believe, has indicated that cooler assessment of the whole strategic situation is required. Mr Anthony on 7 February until he was called into line by an international telephone call also indicated that the Australian Government should not pursue its calls for a boycott in the absence of compelling proof that it would be effective in that the Olympic Federations of many nations agreed to participate in such a boycott. Mr Anthony, having secured Country Party interests- the wool and wheat still flowed to the Soviet Union- could not stomach the hypocrisy of requiring our athletes to bear the burden of the failure of the West’s general foreign policy. This is the Prime Minister’s pet weapon, his shaft aimed at the Russian bear. But it is ludicrous to think that it would have any effect on the hardliners who now evidently determine Politburo policy. Nor is the population- here I disagree with Senator Sim- of that totalitarian state, where news is directed and suppressed, likely to be informed or made aware of Australia’s absence or of the reasons for it if it becomes aware of Australia’s absence from one of the parades accompanying this Olympic festival.

Out of the total armoury of retaliation available to the Australian Government, the Australian Prime Minister has selected this as a symbolic public means by Australia to avenge the Afghan people. The wool growers are not to suffer. Anyone who sees television films of the situation in Kabul and the Afghan countryside must realise how important warm clothing is to an occupying army in that nation. But after all the Soviet Union is our largest customer, after Japan, $ 1 86m worth of wool being sold there last year. The same day as the Prime Minister delivered his television address calling on Olympic athletes to refrain from going to Moscow, four visas were issued to the Soviet wool buying team. I believe that the Government, having originally considered the possibility of at least a temporary embargo on wool sales to the Soviet Union, crumpled in the face of a Soviet threat to boycott the Australian wool sales. It is quite clear that retaliatory measures against Australia, particularly by not participating in Australian wool sales, were discussed by Russian trade officials. One recalls that the senior trade representative of the Canberra Soviet Embassy, Mr A. J. Tikhonov was recalled to Moscow and on his return made this threat known in Australian commercial and trading circles. So much so that at the Agricultural Outlook Conference, occurring at the same time, the Chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation, Mr D. J. Asimus, when questioned about Russian wool buying said that a Russian boycott of the Australian auctions would be catastrophic. This it is claimed shook delegates to the Conference, who up until then had thought entirely in terms of an Australian wool ban on Russia. I find it a cause of great regret that the Australian Government crumbled under the threat of a boycott by Russia of Australian wool sales.

Senator McLaren:

– It shows you how dinkum the Government is.

Senator TATE:

– It cannot be a very dinkum government which, in full knowledge of the occupation by the Soviet Union of Afghanistan as outlined in Senator Wheeldon ‘s question of last September, nevertheless allowed to be sent by way of trade to the Soviet Union in 1978-79 1 7,0 1 6 rifles. This may be a small item compared with the military might of the USSR, but I think that it is a marvellous comment on the posturing of the Australian Government that 1 7,000 rifles were sent to the Soviet Union in 1978-79, not only when it was occupying and aiding and abetting the regime of President Amin in Afghanistan, but also as I will mention later, when it was suppressing Eritrea and carrying out genocide there, as Senator Missen and I pointed out to this chamber virtually this very week last year.

I continue with the catalogue of those who are to be protected from bearing the burdens in the Australian community. We know that wheat continues to flow. That was worth $3 14m last year. Barley continues to flow and yellow maize sits on the New South Wales wharves not because of any reason related to the need of the Russians to obtain feed for their livestock, but merely because of the setting of arbitrary dates selected, 1 believe, so as to have a minimally disruptive and dislocating effect on Australian agricultural trade. We are not to have too costly an impact to go along with our moral outrage. In fact I am not advocating dislocation of our trade in agricultural products with the USSR. I am pointing to the utter inconsistency in the disproportionate sacrifices that our young people are being asked to make while trade continues.

We have the recent fiasco of the Government ‘s banning of Russian cruise ships, but only after 3 1 May when the cruise season is at its end. At the same time the Government continues to permit the Soviet merchant fleet to ply our ports and pick up our cargoes. The Russian cargo line FESCO carries our primary produce to Europe, the United States and South East Asia and has been largely responsible for undercutting the prices of the previous conference lines. Of course the rural lobby would allow no interference with that economic venture being conducted by the Soviet merchant shipping fleet.

The list is endless, but as I have said, what could we expect of a Prime Minister who, despite all his posturing over the last few years about the Russian threat, permitted the export of 17,000 weapons to the Soviet Union in 1978-79? The question of arms brings us to the question of strategic materials and the reversal of the Government’s decision to ban the export of rutile to the Soviet Union. I believe that the reversal of that decision is the event which marks the turning point in the Government’s manipulation of this tragedy for the Afghan people. The Australian people immediately on that reversal saw through the Government’s posturing. The Prime Minister, the very day he was to fly overseas, banned the export of rutile and said that one of the reasons he was going overseas was to construct a list of strategic materials. Has that list of strategic materials yet been tabled in this Parliament? Do we know what is to be said of titanium, which is obviously used in many weapons of war? No such list has been tabled in this Parliament. As I have said, the one metal which the Prime Minister refused to allow to go to the USSR is now free to be exported there.

Not for our traders is the hectoring, the bullying, the domineering, the browbeating and the harassing; that is reserved for our athletes, and also for the Tasmanian community. The most disreputable pan of the Government’s dealings with our athletes has been the threat of financial coercion. We find that not only has Qantas Airways Ltd been leaned upon to remove sponsorship and its services from our Olympic team and officials but also the Government is deliberately manipulating the grant of $500,000 which was made available to the Olympic Federation some three or four weeks ago. In a Press release issued on 10 February 1979-1 admired it at the time- in relation to fund raising campaigns of the Australian Olympic Federation, the Prime Minister said:

In a world where many countries ‘ sporting administration and training programs are government controlled Australians may be justly proud that their own athletic and sporting organisations are free of such restraints and controls.

We find now that the Prime Minister of this country is using the fact that the Government has made a grant of $500,000 to the Australian Olympic Federation as a lever in taking away the free choice of the Olympic Federation in what it sees as being in the best interests of the athletes and of Australia.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And he is putting pressure on individuals to donate.

Senator TATE:

-He also indicated that he wants individual sponsors to adopt his line. In fact, as is often the case, cartoonists see these things more perceptively than do many others. In a cartoon which appeared in the National Times on 10 February Cook set out a letter signed Malcolm ‘, which is clearly referring to the Prime Minister. The latter is on a sheet of notepaper headed: Slepe-tite Motel Washington D.C. It reads:

Dear Olympic Persons,

I hope you will agree with me that Moscow is right out. We can discuss this further when I hand over the $500,000 and of course the decision is entirely up to you just as the many day to day decisions such as $500,000 for sport are up to me. The fate of the Free World and Australia’s image are at stake and these matters are far more important to me than elections or $500,000 for sport as I’m sure they are to you. I’m sure you want the matter len in your hands, together with the $500,000. Looking forward to your co-operation.

Malcolm

I believe that that pseudo letter accurately protrays in a light-hearted way the much more serious brow beating, hectoring, coercive, bullying tone which the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) have adopted towards our athletes. However, I find most disgusting the rhetorical questions which Mr Fraser directed to our athletes from Honolulu and again, I notice, in the speech which he delivered today in the House of Representatives. From Honolulu Mr Fraser said:

How many lives have to be lost before the revulsion of Olympic committees equals the revulsion of governments? How much territory has to be invaded, in the view of the Australian Olympic Federation, before Moscow becomes an inappropriate location for the Games? If it was another territory, if it was closer to Australia, would they view it with a different degree of seriousness? Are the lives of Afghans less important than the lives of others?

What utter hypocrisy from a man who continued to send arms in the way of military aid and who continued to trade with Indonesia after that country’s invasion of our nearest neighbour. How much closer can one get to Australia than East Timor where tens of thousands of innocent people were slaughtered by the invading forces, where a puppet government was installed when it was said to be incorporated into Indonesia, where thousands more perished from disease and malnutrition as they sought to evade the aggressor’s armed forces over the years?

Senator Wheeldon has already pointed out that he brought the Afghan question to the notice of the Government in September. Senator Missen and I brought the question of Soviet military involvement in genocide in Eritrea to the notice of this chamber in March of last year, almost exactly a year ago to this very week. In that contribution in the adjournment debate on 1 March, Senator Missen pointed out a particular instance- we mentioned the Soviet generals in charge of the troops at the time- where the Soviet-led forces had burnt and destroyed crops ripe for harvest. These crops were burnt to ashes. The report referred to by Senator Missen stated:

Close to 40 villages of populations of about 1,000 persons have been totally ruined and over 100 more have suffered big damages; close to 5,000 civilians are reported dead and seriously wounded; 8,000 getting medical treatment. Heavy military activities, east and north of Asmara, have forced 60,000 people to abandon their homes and flee to safer areas in the north. About 40,000 have been evacuated from Keren and its surrounding areas alone.

That description of the Soviet-manned offensive against the Eritrean people was presented to this chamber and thereby to the Australian Government one year ago. Russian troops were involved in that country in a program which can be described only as genocide. Just as Senator Wheeldon was somewhat prophetic, I may claim a little of the cloak of Elijah myself because the very questions I asked then, I believe, are applicable to the situation now. I asked:

When will we hear of instructions issued to our ambassador in Nairobi, Kenya, to raise Australia’s protest at this military adverturism by the colonels of the Dergue?

They were aided by Russian generals. I went on to ask:

Where is our call to the United Nations to regain for the Eritrean people . . . their intended autonomy?

Later I stated:

It appears that we save our diplomatic spleen and posturing for those occasions when we can mimic our major allies . . .

I believe that that is what has occurred in the present situation. It was only when the United States quite rightly moved to marshal world opinion in condemnation of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan that the Australian Government decided that it was time and right to act. Its moral posturings over the years have been quite threadbare and certainly have not involved any question of any cost being borne to the Australian community in response to Russian aggression, as happened in the case of Eritrea. In other words, we are faced with total hypocrisy.

I find it disgusting to see the Prime Minister and his deputy attempting to coerce our athletes into accepting the roles of aiders and abettors of the atrocities of the Russian invaders in Afghanistan. Fortunately, I think the charge is so absurd as to be rejected by any fairminded, rational Australian. In fact, the more that Mr Anthony in particular tried to place our athletes in that category of aiders and abettors of Russian atrocities if they went to Moscow, the more desperate and ridiculous in the eyes of the public did the Australian Government’s policy in that area become. But despite the fact that those wounding comments have been revealed as absurd they serve the purpose of providing an interesting insight into the characters of those who made them. Do not tell me, as Mr Fraser has done in this speech in the House of Representatives this afternoon, that deep down he is somewhat upset that Australian athletes, young men and women of Australia, have to make these sacrifices in the greater cause. I do not believe for one moment that Mr Fraser is concerned about the lives of young Australians. He is not concerned that young sporting careers and personal fulfilment are being blighted.

Senator MacGibbon:

-That is not true.

Senator TATE:

- Mr Fraser was the Minister responsible for sending hundreds of Australians to Vietnam. He sent young Australians to the horrific maiming and killing in Vietnam. It seems to me that young Australians are the particular victims of Malcolm Fraser ‘s foreign policy.

I would like to take up another matter not in a general context but as a senator for Tasmania. I give an indication to the Senate that I will not tolerate discriminatory action against the people of my State, the community of Tasmania. It seems to me that we have been singled out and fixed on; we have been selected to bear the brunt of the only significant economic burden of retaliatory measures against the USSR. I will explain that by stating what is at stake for us in Tasmania.

Debate interrupted.

page 58

ADJOURNMENT

Death of Mr John Dearson-Housing for Elderly Citizens in South Australia- Alleged Offences by Aboriginal Boy: Reports by Media

The PRESIDENT:

-Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I regret to advise honourable senators that Mr John Dearson passed away on Friday last after a protracted illness. In his service as Manager of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms, he was a conscientious and courteous officer. I feel that honourable senators would wish that I express our sincere sympathy to his wife and his family in their sad loss.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-I desire to raise a matter again tonight which I raised with the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, by way of letter on 27 August of last year and in the Senate on 29 August during the course of my speech on the Budget. I am disappointed that the Minister is not in the chamber tonight. I advised that I was to raise this matter.

I refer to the funding for the Kapunda Committee for the Ageing Inc. in South Australia which is an organisation which is endeavouring to provide accommodation for aged people in the district. On 2 1 August in a statement to the Senate, the Minister for Social Security said, among other things:

Early approval has been given also for funding additional priority projects to the value of $ 10m in 1980-81 in order that the necessary forward planning and development of those projects can be completed during 1979-80.

On 29 August while speaking on the Budgetthis is recorded at page 403 of the Senate *Hansard- * referred to the Minister and said:

  1. . she said . . . that an extra allocation has been made in the Budget for the provision of homes for elderly citizens. I wrote to the Minister yesterday on behalf of the people of Kapunda who have been trying for years to get a grant from this Government to establish an elderly citizens home complex. Every year they are told: ‘Next year you might get it’. I wrote to the Minister and I pointed out that she had made a statement in the House last Tuesday to the effect that there was an extra allocation of money for this purpose. I asked her to give the Kapunda claim high priority. I hope that in view of the fact that the Minister has made in this House within a week two statements to the effect that extra money will be made available for this type of project at least the people of Kapunda, who have been trying for many years, to receive funds, will receive an allocation or grant so that they can go ahead and provide the homes which are so sorely needed.

On 1 8 December, the Minister saw fit to put out a Press statement. It is headed ‘ News Release from the Minister for Social Security- Major New $225m Program for Aged and Disabled Persons Accommodation’ and reads:

The Commonwealth Government announced today a new $255m program for aged and disabled persons’ accommodation.

The Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle said the new program will enable hundreds of projects to be approved for the next three years.

The three year rolling program would commence in 1980-81 and would follow on from the current program which was introduced in 1 976.

Projects up to the value of $225m can now be approved for the next three financial years; the actual spending in each year would depend on the ability of approved organisations to proceed with their plans.

Early announcement of forward funding had been made to enable organisations to develop their project plans in consultation with the Department of Social Security. Projects to be funded under the new three year program will be announced in January following an examination of applications held by the Department.

Particular attention will be given to areas where there are demonstrated unmet needs and to organisations willing to provide accommodation for needy aged or disabled people in the community.

Senator Guilfoyle said the new program would enable the Government to continue its high level of support for aged and disabled persons’ accommodation.

The Aged and Disabled Persons’ Accommodation Program assists eligible religious, charitable or local government organisations to provide self-contained units, hostels and nursing home facilities.

Senator Guilfoyle said a key priority of the Government in the welfare area has been to progressively improve facilities for the aged. This further three year rolling program of funding would go a long way towards meeting outstanding demand in key areas of need.

The dateline is Canberra, 18 December 1979.

On 20 December, I sent a telegram to Senator Guilfoyle which reads thus:

Please advise me if the long-standing application for funds by the Kapunda Committee for the Ageing Incorporated is to be given top priority in your recent announcement of increased funding for aged persons accommodation. Your confirmation to this effect would be a wonderful Xmas present for the elderly folk who have been waiting so long for accommodation.

Senator Mulvihill:

-What date is that?

Senator McLAREN:

– It was 20 December, two days after the Press release. I said in the telegram that confirmation of funds would be a wonderful Christmas present for the aged persons in the Kapunda district who had been waiting so long for accommodation. I pointed out to the Minister that those people had been waiting a long time. I, too, have been waiting just two months today for an acknowledgement of the telegram I sent to the Minister. She has completely ignored me and the people in Kapunda.

She did not even have the courtesy to acknowledge the telegram that I sent her when she released a Press statement to the effect that the Government was making an extra $225m available to house elderly people. I am informed by the people in Kapunda and particularly the honorary secretary of the organisation that these people have been applying for funds for a long time. The Minister issued a Press release just before Christmas referring to what is supposedly an extra allocation of money; yet we cannot get an acknowledgement of the telegram.

Some announcements were made last month about funding for certain organisations in South Australia and, so far as I am aware, the Kapunda Committee for the ageing was not among the recipients. Senator Grimes, as our spokesman on social security, had to take up the issue with the good Minister because of that Press statement. He pointed out in a bulletin he released in January of this year some of the misleading things that were in that statement. He had this to say under the heading of ‘Aged Persons Housing’:

The Fraser Government introduced the first $225m threeyear program in 1976 to disguise two significant cutbacks they had made.

Firstly, the level of subsidy was cut from $4:$ 1 -

That is the amount we were giving when in government- to$2:$l.

Secondly, the funding level was to drop from $7 1.Sm (the last year of the Labor Government) to $45m.

But Senator Guilfoyle did not even honour that commitment.

Instead of spending $22Sm in three years, she spent only $147m. Instead of providing 15,000 beds, she provided only 10,622. It became a five-year program, not a three-year program.

On 18 December last when she announced her ‘major new’ $225m program for the second time (to begin in 1980-81), I pointed out some of the above facts. I also pointed out that to claim that the Government was continuing ‘its high level of support for aged and disabled persons accommodation’ as Senator Guilfoyle did was thoroughly misleading.

To continue the $225m program as announced in 1976 would now require $330m just to remain at that level. This means that the program has been effectively cut by $ 105m- if the Government carries it out.

The people in the Kapunda area in particular are very disturbed that their applications for money, despite the time involved, which is considerable, are not yet recognised. I dare say that many other members of parliament have had it drawn to their attention that others too are being ignored by this Government which puts out Press statements claiming increased allocations when, as Senator Grimes has pointed out, the fact is that the Government is reducing the amount of money that it is making available for the construction of elderly citizens’ homes. I think that the Government on two counts ought to be condemned for what it is doing- firstly, for misleading the public and, secondly, for not having the courtesy to acknowledge a telegram seeking some commitment from the Minister after she made a Press statement that she was making an extra $22 5m available for the housing of elderly citizens of this country.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I wish to refer to one point raised by Senator McLaren as to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle ‘s absence. It is my understanding that she had intended to be here this evening to listen to Senator McLaren’s statement, but as she was delayed at a meeting in her office she was unable to be here. But I have no doubt that she will give her immediate attention to the matters the honourable senator has raised.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-I wish briefly to mention a matter arising from the Australian Broadcasting Commission program AM this morning. On the program there was a report about a case called the Black Houdini case in Brisbane. Briefly it was a report about a 15- year-old Aboriginal boy who has been charged with, but I understand has not yet been found guilty of, various offences including armed robbery and car stealing; the difficulty his solicitor considered he was having in getting a fair trial because of the spectacular treatment of his case in the media, exemplified by the naming of this lad the Black Houdini because he had escaped from custody; and the difficulty that this would create in the minds of the jury because of the spectacular treatment handed out by the Press. In the AM report a Peter Cave, a reporter from Brisbane, took up the case and said, amongst other things, the following words, and I partly quote:

During January, the youth was allegedly involved in a series of high-speed car chases as he eluded police capture, and several cars were wrecked. Then earlier this month, he was finally captured by 30 police, who cornered him under a house in Brisbane with the aid of tracker dogs and a helicopter. He was placed under the care of the Children’s Services Department but last Friday, the Black Houdini as he is known to the Police and the media, escaped whilst being taken to a Brisbane Clinic for medical treatment for VD.

The report goes on further to describe the difficulties. I would be concerned about the problems of a lawyer defending this lad, but my immediate concern tonight is the expression that he escaped whilst being taken to a Brisbane clinic for medical treatment for VD ‘. If he had been named that defamatory statement would have resulted in an immediate and a successful libel case. Those involved in medicine and the law know that to impute that someone has had venereal disease automatically results in a libel case and that libel case is invariably successful.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Has he not been identified?

Senator GRIMES:

– The problem is that this lad is not anonymous. He has not been named but he is known amongst the media and obviously throughout Brisbane as the Black Houdini. I suggest that if he had been white, if he had been suffering from some common disease such as a respiratory infection or an abdominal infection no mention of the disease would have been made in the Press; nor should it have been because there is a tradition in this country that people’s medical conditions, whatever they are, are a private matter between themselves and the doctor who is treating them. If a person chooses to make that disease public that is his or her business. Otherwise it is a private matter. It is important that it should be a private matter so that people can be treated successfully. It is particularly important in relation to the sort of disease mentioned in this report.

I merely make the comment that I believe this report is prejudicial; that it is unfair to the boy involved, whether he is guilty or not, and no matter where he comes from; that much more care is needed in reporting of this type from the ABC or any other section of the media in this country, but one would particularly expect it from the ABC which allegedly has higher standards than other sections of the media; that there should be more respect for civil rights; that there should be more respect for this lad as a human being. I hope the ABC takes some action in the future to make sure that similar reports are not presented again. I hope the people involved with this lad will consider whether there is some cause for legal action to be taken in this case.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I am grateful that Senator Grimes has raised this matter this evening because it has been one of my pet hates in relation to reporting by the media of Aboriginal affairs in general. I am well aware of the case that Senator Grimes has mentioned this evening in relation to the 1 5-year-old lad. Whilst I do not condone what he is alleged to have done- stealing motor cars and escaping from police custody-it is the kind of reporting by the media that I have been objecting to for some considerable time. I have taken this matter up with a number of people in the various media sections such as television who talk about it. Reports on crimes committed by Aboriginal people are highlighted by the media to such an extent that it conditions the general community to the bad elements of the Aboriginal community. Let me illustrate the kind of things that do happen.

When one reads the Courier-Mail, the Australian or whatever newspaper it might be one finds reports headed ‘Aboriginal man charged’, ‘Aborigine charged with rape’, ‘Aborigine charged with murder’, ‘Aborigine charged with stealing’. When one turns the page one finds reports headed ‘Twenty-one-year-old man charged with rape’, ‘Twenty-one-year-old man charged with murder’, ‘Twenty-one-year-old man charged with breaking and entering’. It seems strange that on one page the media reports that an Aborigine has been charged but on the next page it is a 21 -year-old man. These are the kinds of things that happen and condition the thinking of people in relation to Aboriginal people. Why does not the media report that a 2 1- year-old man has been charged regardless of whether he is an Aborigine, and Italian, a Chinaman, an Irishman, a Scotsman or whatever? Why do media reports not refer to a 21-year-old, a 22-year-old or 25-year-old man being charged instead of highlighting the fact that an Aborigine has been charged? It also happens in respect of new Australians. The media reports that a new Australian or a migrant has been charged, but on the next page the newspaper reports that a 25-year-old, a 26-year- old or a 30-year-old man has been charged.

Because of the conditioning of the people through the media, whether it be television, radio or the newspapers when an Aboriginal family is moving in to a certain street or suburb in a city or town, immediately the people in that suburb conjure up in their minds what they have seen in the media. They think: ‘My God, an Aboriginal family is moving in. Our daughters are going to be raped; our homes are going to be broken into ‘. But of course in their minds there is the story they have read in the newspapers. It does not matter whether it is a 2 1-year-old or 30- year-old Aborigine. The problem is that he is reported as being an Aborigine.

The same thing applies in this case involving a young lad who has been charged with a number of offences. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not condone what he has done. He must pay the penalty for the crimes he has committed. But this media report highlights the fact that this young fellow has been taken to the clinic to be examined for venereal disease. I am very pleased that Senator Grimes has brought this aspect up because it applies right across the board as far as Aborigines are concerned. Had it been a young non-Aboriginal I just wonder whether the ABC would have reported that he was taken to be examined for venereal disease.

I am very grateful to Senator Grimes for bringing up this matter so that I can discuss the general issue once again in this chamber, as I have done on numerous occasions. We have the electronic media going into suburbs with television cameras and everything else and highlighting Aborigines living in all sorts of sordid conditions. The media will film an hotel situated in a very bad environment, with Aborigines drunk and lolling around or Aborigines living in very bad circumstances. As I have said time and time again, whilst I do not object to that being done, because Aborigines are living under those sorts of conditions, I do object to the fact that no comparison is ever given. The media will not go into a suburb in which Aboriginals are living in a normal situation- a family living in a nice housing commission home or a rented home, with dad going to work and the children going to schooland compare that with the bad conditions in which some Aborigines find themselves having to live. They do not say: ‘Look, with government assistance and the community’s assistance we can transform the situationin which this group of people are living into this other situation’. They just show up the bad elements or the bad conditions under which we, the Aboriginal people, find ourselves living from time to time. They do not give a comparison. Again, I can only say that I am very grateful that Senator Grimes has brought this matter to the attention of the Senate tonight. I fully support what he has said.

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations · NCP/NP

– I have noted the concern expressed by Senator McLaren tonight. I shall refer the whole matter to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, for her consideration. The Black Houdini issue raised by Senator Grimes appears to involve consideration of the possibility of Australian Broadcasting Commission reporting prejudicing the fair trial of Black Houdini. I shall have that matter refered to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (MrStaley).

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 61

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:

Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) ActRegulations Statutory Rules 1979 No. 299.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act- RegulationsStatutory Rules 1979 No. 274.

Air Force Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1979 Nos 257, 303; 1980 No. 2.

Apple and Pear Levy Collection Act- RegulationsStatutory Rules 1980 No. 12.

Audit Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1979 Nos 282, 284.

Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs ActRegulations Statutory Rules 1980 No. 6.

Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty ActRegulations Statutory Rules 1979 No. 278.

Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979 No. 276.

Canned Fruits Levy Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979 No. 293.

Canned Fruits Levy Collection Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979 No. 292.

Canned Fruits Marketing Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979 No. 294.

Canning-Fruit Charge Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 8.

Christmas Island Act-

Ordinances-

1979-

No. 6- Explosive (Storage and Use).

No. 7- Police Force (Amendment). 1980-No. 1-Inquiry.

Cocos ( Keeling) Islands Act- Ordinances 1 979-

No. 4- Cocos Community Fund (Dissolution).

No. 5- Singapore Ordinances Application.

No. 6- Interpretation (Amendment).

Commonwealth Banks Act- Appointments- E. Kerr, R. H. McLauchlan, A. J. Mangioni, P. J. Mulligan, N. W. Phillips, R. J. Turvey, D. R. White.

Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act- RegulationsStatutory Rules 1980 No. 19.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act- Award by the Australian Conciliation Commission- 1977- C (No. 1705 ) - Commonwealth Teaching Service (Northern Territory Teachers) Conditions Award 1979- Industrial dispute.

Coral Sea Islands Act- Ordinances 1979- No. 1 - Application of Laws (Amendment).

Criminology Research Act- Regulation- Statutory Rules 1979 No. 287.

Customs Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979 Nos 275, 277, 280.

Customs Act and Commerce (Trade Descriptions) ActRegulations Statutory Rules 1 979 Nos 252, 27 1 .

Dairy Industry Stabilization Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979 No. 291.

Defence Act-

Interim Determinations- Statutory Rules 1979 Nos 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 31 1, 312, 313; 1980 Nos 4, 9, 10, 20.

Regulations-Statutory Rules 1 979 Nos 258, 266, 302.

Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force ActRegulationsStatutory Rules 1979 Nos 247, 248, 254, 256,260,265; 1980 Nos 1,3.

Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits ActRegulationsStatutory Rules 1979 No. 255.

Dried Fruits Levy Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979 No. 270.

Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Act- RegulationsStatutory Rules 1979 No. 269.

Excise Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1 979 No. 279.

Fisheries Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1980 No. 13.

Health Insurance Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979 No. 285.

Housing Loans Insurance Act- Regulation- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 17.

Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act RegulationsStatutory Rules 1979 No. 288.

Industrial Research and Development Incentives ActRegulations Statutory Rules 1979 No. 296.

Lands Acquisition Act-

Lands, etc., acquired for-

Baseline Air Pollution Station- Cape Grim, Tasmania.

Extensions to Perth Airport- Newburn, Western Australia.

Statement by the Minister describing land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 ( 1 ) of the Act for specified public purposes.

National Companies and Securities Commission ActRegulations Statutory Rules 1980 No. 5.

National Health Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1979 No. 250.

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation ActRegulationStatutory Rules 1978 No. 298.

Naval Defence Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979, Nos 251, 253, 281, 301; 1980 No. 7.

Navigation Act-

Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations-

Determination by the Minister, dated 28 December 1979, together with the Australian Supplement to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.

Inter-Government Maritime Consultative Organisation- International Maritime Goods Code-

Amendments- 14-76 and 15-77 (Volumes I, II, III and IV). 16-78 (Volumes I, II, III, and IV).

Volumes-

I -General Introduction, Annex 1 - Packaging and Class 1.

II -Classes 2, 3 and 4.

III- Classes 5 and 6.

IV- Classes 7, 8, 9 and General Index.

Regulations-Statutory Rules 1979 No. 300.

Overseas Students Charge Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979 No. 289.

Overseas Students Charge Collection Act- RegulationsStatutory Rules 1979 No. 290.

Overseas Telecommunications Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979 No. 249.

Postal Services Act- By-laws- 1 979- Postal Amendment No. 4. 1980- Postal Amendment No. 1.

Public Service Act-

Appointments- Department-

Aboriginal Affairs-R. J. Liddle.

Australian National Parks and Wildlife P. W. Harrison, W. G. Whiteman.

Industrial Relations- E. J. Benjamin.

Regulations-Statutory Rules 1979 Nos 259, 261, 262, 263,264,272,295,297; 1980 No. 18.

Public Service Arbitration Act- Determinations by the Arbitrator, accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law- 1 979-

No. 516- Commonwealth Foremen’s Association of Australia (Australian Public Service).

No. 517- Customs Officers’ Association of Australia, Fourth Division and another.*

No. 5 1 8- Australian Public Service Association ( Fourth Division Officers).

No. 519- Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia. ( *Not accompanied by statement)

Quarantine Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979 No. 286; 1980 No. 16.

Remuneration Tribunals Act-

Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly- 1979 ReviewAppendices.

Determination- 17/79- Salaries, Fees and Allowances of Executive Members and Members of the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island, dated 23 November 1979.

Statement.

Determinations- 16/79- Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices- Australian Security Intelligence Organization and others- together with an explanatory statement, dated 1 November 1979. 18/79- Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices- Administrative Review Council and others- together with an explanatory statement, dated 6 December 1979. 19/79- Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices- Parliament House Construction Authority- together with an explanatory statement, dated 20 December 1979.

Seat of Government (Administration Act)-

Ordinances-

1979-

No. 34- Liquor (Amendment) (No. 3).

No. 35- Co-operative Societies (Amendment).

No. 36- Betting (Totalizator Agency) (Amendment ).

No. 37- Poker Machine Control (Amendment) (No. 2).

No. 38- Medical Practitioners Registration (Amendment).

No. 39- Juries (Amendment).

No. 40- Legal Practitioners (Amendment) (No. 2).

No. 41- Court of Petty Session (Amendment) (No.

2).

No. 42- Consumer Affairs (Amendment).

No. 43- Egg Industry (Amendment). 1980-No. 1-Holidays (Amendment).

Regulations- 1979-

No. 26- (Regulations to revise the Regulations in force under the Ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory).

No. 27- (Co-operative Societies Ordinance).

No. 28- (Roads and Public Places Ordinance ).

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act ( 1978)- Statement by the Minister of a direction under sub-section 13 (3) of the Act, dated 18 December 1979.

States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act- Amendment to the Schedules of the subsidy scheme in relation to the States of Queensland and Western Australia, dated 2 December 1979.

Student Assistance Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1979 Nos 267, 268, 304; 1980 Nos 14, 15.

Superannuation Act-Regulation- Statutory Rules 1979 No.

Telecommunications Act- By-laws-

Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment Nos 40, 4 1.

Telecommunications (Community Calls).

Telecommunications (General) Amendment No. 25.

Tertiary Education Commission Act- RegulationsStatutory Rules 1980 No. 1 1.

Trade Commissioners Act- Regulation- Statutory Rules 1979 No. 273.

Senate adjourned at 10.53 p.m.

page 63

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Alleged Social Security Frauds (Question No. 1288}

Senator Peter Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Was the National Times article of 3 February 1979, concerning alleged social security frauds, substantially correct when it asserted: (a) that among medical records taken from doctors by Commonwealth Police were many relating to people not remotely concerned with matters under investigation, and that the Commonwealth Police continue to hold these records; and (b) that the Department of Social Security made available to the Commonwealth Police about 1,000 social securityfiles, that is, a number in excess of the number allegedly involved in any wrongdoing or who had their benefits cancelled.
  2. What has been done with the private and confidential medical and social security records unconnected with the police matter but held by the Commonwealth Police, and what specifically will be done to ensure and maintain the confidentiality that uninvolved people are entitled to expect should apply to private records raised between themselves and their doctors.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The matters raised by the honourable senator relate to evidence at the committal proceedings in the Social Security fraud cases presently before the court in Sydney. On 19 November last the magistrate expressed concern about possible infringement of the sub judice rule. The provision at this stage of a detailed answer to the honourable senator’s questions would constitute an infringement of the sub judice rule under the rulings of the Presiding Officers of the Parliament. Should the honourable senator wish to raise his questions after the matters have been resolved in the courts, I would then be in a position to answer them.

Alleged Social Security Frauds (Question No. 1482)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many files did the Commonwealth Police examine in their investigation into the alleged New South Wales social security frauds.
  2. Where were they examined.
  3. How many files: (a) were removed from the Department of Social Security; (b) were subsequently returned to the Department of Social Security; and (c) remain with the Commonwealth Police.
  4. For what purpose are such files retained by the Commonwealth Police.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. to (4) The matters raised by the honourable senator relate to evidence at the committal proceedings in the Social

Security fraud cases presently before the court in Sydney. On 19 November last the magistrate expressed concern about possible infringement of the sub judice rule. The provision at this stage of a detailed answer to the honourable senator ‘s questions would constitute an infringement of the sub judice rule under the rulings of the Presiding Officers of the Parliament. Should the honourable senator wish to raise his questions after the matters have been resolved in the courts, I would then be in a position to answer them.

Personal Income Tax (Question No. 1710)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) What has been the total amount of personal income tax paid (a) under the Pay As You Earn (PA YE) scheme; and (b) by other means, in each year from 1975-76 to 1978-79.
  2. What would have been the estimated total amount of personal income tax paid in each year from 1976-77 to 1978-79 if there had been full indexation- that is, if the tax scales had been indexed completely rather than partially, for changes in the consumer price index- in each of those years.
  3. By how much would total personal income tax collections have been reduced: (a) in 1978-79 if there had been no tax surcharge in that year; and (b) in the years 1976-77 to 1978-79, if Medibank had remained as established in the 1975 Budget, assuming, in both cases, that full indexation of personal tax was in operation.
  4. By how much would total personal income tax receipts have been reduced in each year from 1976-77 to 1978-79 if each of the policies described in (2), (3) (a) and (b) had been in operation.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Net personal income tax collections (including collections on account of the health insurance levy) for each of the years 1975-76 to 1978-79 were:
  1. The answer would depend on which of a range of assumptions not stated in the question was adopted. Because of this it is not practicable to provide a reliably based estimate.

  2. (a) If the standard rate personal income tax scale that came into effect on 1 February 1978 had applied for the 1978-79 income year as indexed by the factor derived from the increase in the average level of the Consumer Price Index for the 1 2 months ended March 1 978 over its average level in the preceding 12 months, the 1.5 per cent increase in the standard rate would have applied to income above $4,159 instead of income above $3,893 and the increase in tax collections resulting from the increase in the standard rate would have been lower than in fact occurred. On that basis it is estimated that, if the standard rate had not been so increased, net personal income tax collections for 1978-79 would have been reduced by about $540m.

    1. It is estimated that net collections on account of the health insurance levy were $176.8m in 1976-77; $324.6m in 1977-78 and $ 133.0m in 1978-79. These collections would not have been reduced to a significant extent by any variation to the indexation arrangements.
  3. See answer to (2).

Excise of Potable Spirits (Question No. 1728)

Senator Elstob:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has there been any increase in revenue to the Government as a result ofthe increase in excise levied on all potable spirits in the 1978-79 Budget.
  2. What has been the (a) increase; or (b) decrease, in revenue collected on each: (i) Australian; and (ii) imported spirit, in respect of which the excise was incresed
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Rates of excise and customs duty on potable spirits were increased in the 1978-79 Budget. Prior to that Budget it was estimated that, on the basis of no change in rates of duty, clearances (and hence revenue) would increase by about 2 per cent in 1 978-79. During the nine month period following the increase in rates in that Budget, i.e. October 1978 to June 1979, excise and customs clearances of potable spirits declined by comparison with the same period of the previous year but this was considerably more than offset by the increase in rates of duty. After allowance for the small gain that would have been expected in any case, it is estimated that the net gain to revenue would be about $S4m on a full year basis.
  2. The increase in excise and customs duty (i.e. on domestic and imported spirits respectively), estimated on a full year basis for the main potable spirits and in total is summarised in the table below.

Fuel Prices: Consultations between National Energy Office and Farm Representatives (Question No. 1761)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What consultation or exchanges of information have taken place between the National Energy Office of the Department of National Development and Energy and farm representatives concerning fuel prices and improved energy efficiency, following the former Minister’s undertaking of 16 January 1979.
  2. Which farm representatives were involved in each case.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The previous Minister for National Development and officers of the National Energy Office had a number of exchanges of information and consultation with farming organisations throughout 1 979. In the last quarter of 1 979 my predecessor had several meetings with farming representatives, and participated in a number of conferences concerned with the impact of rising fuel prices on agriculture and the rural sector.

Officers of my Department have participated in a number of seminars and conferences, an example being the ‘Workshop on the Impact of Changes in Energy Costs in the Rural Section of the Australian Economy’ held in Bunbury, Western Australia in October last year.

My predecessor had discussions on 7 November with representatives of the National Farmers’ Federation, the Australian Wheatgrowers ‘ Federation, the Ricegrowers ‘ Association of Australia, the Australian Dairy Farmers’ Federation, the Wool Council of Australia, the Cattle Council of Australia and the Australian Fishing Industry Council.

To facilitate communication between farming organisations and the Commonwealth Government on energy matters, Mr D. P. Eckersley, O.B.E., President of the National Farmers’ Federation, has been appointed to the National Energy Advisory Committee.

Mr Eckersley and Mr F. A. L. Connell, President of the Australian Fishing Industry Council, have also been appointed to the recently established National Petroleum Advisory Committee (NPAC) to ensure that primary industry interests are directly involved in the consideration of any emergency fuel allocation arrangements.

Health Insurance (Question No. 1811)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 22 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the average weekly cost per person of health insurance when Medibank was first introduced.
  2. What changes have taken place in health insurance costs, and from what dates, since the present Government came to office.
  3. What is the average weekly cost per person of health insurance as at I September 1979.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Medibank medical arrangements were introduced on 1 July 1975 and hospital cost sharing arrangements under Medibank were introduced on different dates in the States between 1 July 1975 and I October 1975. Before the introduction of Medibank the cost of basic health insurance (i.e. medical benefits subject to a maximum patient contribution of $5 and public ward hospital benefits at $27 to $30 a day) varied between $1.94 and $3.57 per family per week for the major health insurance organisation in each State. After

Medibank was introduced, health insurance funds only covered medical gap benefits i.e. the difference between Medibank benefits and Schedule fees, ancillary benefits and hospital benefits. Contribution rates for major organisations in each State for medical gap, ancillary and basic hospital benefits (at $20 a day) varied between $1.70 and $3.06 per family per week.

  1. and (3) Since 1976 the average health insurance contribution rate for major funds in each State have varied from the rates in ( 1 ) above as shown in the following table. The reasons for the changes in rates are given in notes to the table.

The honourable gentleman would also be aware of the huge cost explosion that occurred in health expenditure during the former Labor Government ‘s term of office.

For instance, from 30 June 1972 total health expenditure rose from $2,232m to $S,660m in June 1976.

This is an increase of approximately 125 per cent.

Needless to say, such a dramatic increase in health costs must be reflected in health insurance premiums. No doubt this could have been minimised by subsidising health insurance premiums more substantially from taxpayers’ revenue.

  1. From 1 October 1976 medically insured persons did not receive medical benefits from Standard Medibank. The basic medical benefits tables operated by health insurance organisations provided fund benefits based on 85 per cent of the Schedule medical fee with a statutory maximum gap of $5 per service between the Schedule fee and the basic fund benefit payable. The basic level of hospital fund benefit increased from $20 to $40 a day in Une with increased hospital bed day charges.
  2. Early in 1978 contribution rates for most funds increased following increases in medical fees and benefits from 1 January 1978, changed nursing home benefits arrangements from 1 October 1977 and the introduction of public hospital outpatient fees in some States. Charges for Commonwealth pathology services were also introduced.
  3. On 1 November 1978 a universal Commonwealth medical benefit was introduced which provided benefits equivalent to 40 per cent of the Schedule fee or the Schedule fee less $20, whichever was the greater amount. Consequently, health insurance organisations restructured their basic medical fund benefits tables to provide fund benefits (35 per cent/$I0 gap), which when added to the available Commonwealth medical benefits, provided the same level of basic cover as existed from I July 1978. (On 1 July 1978 basic medical table fund benefit was reduced from 85 per cent to 75 per cent and the patient gap increased from S5 to $10).
  4. ) On 1 September 1979 a universal medical guarantee was introduced and the 40 per cent benefit previously payable for services with a Schedule fee of $20 or less was deleted. Commonwealth medical benefit covers all except the first $20 of Medical Benefits Schedule fees. Health insurance organisations restructured their basic medical fund benefits tables to maintain the previous total benefit cover i.e. 75 per cent/$lO gap. In addition, benefit levels rose from 1 November 1979 because of increased doctors* fees. The contribution rate changes from 1 September 1979 also took this factor into account. Basic hospital fees and benefits were increased from $40 to $50 per day with effect from 1 September 1979. Contribution rates were adjusted accordingly.

Immigration: Countries of Origin (Question No. 1890)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

  1. How many refugees have been accepted by, and settled in Australia since 1 945.
  2. From which countries or regions have these refugees come and what is the total from each country or region.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) While Australia accepts the international definition of a refugee enunciated in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the related Protocol, Australian refugee policies provide also for the admission of persons outside this definition but in circumstances of such a nature as to justify special humanitarian consideration for their entry. The following table sets out the numbers of persons accepted by Australia since 1945 both as refugees and as displaced persons and other humanitarian cases.

Note: Because of varying policies and interpretations of the definition of a refugee over the 34 year period in question, it is not possible to provide figures compiled on the basis of a single statistical definition. As a result, the above figures are not entirely compatible with some previously published calculations.

Government Purchases of Oil (Question No. 1920)

Senator Tate:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government considered a report of officials on Government-to-Government purchases of oil, by-passing the major oil companies.
  2. Did the report indicate that: (a) supplies of oil from the Middle East were conditional upon concessions relating to certain political matters and various trade issues; and (b) Middle East countries would require the establishment of an Australian Government Corporation through which they would do business.
  3. When will the Government inform the Parliament of its decisions on this crucial report.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government has received a report by officials on the possibility of Government-to-Government purchases of oil.
  2. ) The contents of the report are confidential.
  3. The Government has not yet completed its consideration of this matter. When it has done so, announcements of decisions will be made to Parliament in the usual way.

Peer Review Studies (Question No. 1948)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 8 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) On what dates were grants given to organisations to conduct studies, in respect of the $ 1 million given to the study of peer review.
  2. Which organisations received these grants and what were the amounts in each case.
  3. What reports has the Minister received regarding the progress of peer review.
  4. Are these reports to be made public or can they be obtained on request.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) A list of organisations which have been given health service research and development grants totalling $1 million for studies into various aspects of review systems follows. The list includes studies concerned with facets of quality assurance, utilisation review and criteria auditing. Shown against each project is the date on which a grant was initially approved and the amount of grant allocated to each organisation.
  1. As the honourable senator will be aware, the Government has challenged the Australian Medical Association to take a leadership role in the introduction of systems of peer review into Australia. I am pleased to say that the Association has taken up the challenge and has pursued the objective with considerable energy. For this reason, and because peer review does not, in principle, provide for external interference, 1 have largely restricted my monitoring of progress to the reports prepared by the Association. The reports the Association has provided are essentially the same material that has been presented to meetings of the A.M.A. ‘s Federal Council and that has been given much prominence in the A.M.A. Gazette. In respect of the studies which have been funded, as outlined in parts (1) and (2) above, one of the conditions attached to the grants is that the researchers undertaking the studies provide progress reports at six monthly intervals. These reports have been forwarded to my Department by the researchers. I would also refer the honourable senator to a press release I made on 28 August 1979 which also provides information about progress on peer review.
  2. It is my intention that my Department will produce for wide public dissemination, reports on projects which have the potential for contributing, in a substantial fashion, to the development of formal systems of peer review. A number of studies are still in their early stages and of the small number of final projects reports which have been received the findings, while useful, seem not to warrant the expenditure incurred in a wide distribution. While I would be happy to provide reports of specific projects in which the honourable senator may have a particular interest, he will no doubt appreciate that a substantial volume of paper would be required if he wished copies of both progress and final reports for every project funded. I am sure that the individual researchers would be delighted to provide him with information on the current state of their individual research studies.

Victoria Hotel Snack Bar, Darwin: Compliance with Award (Question No. 2007)

Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 27 September 1 979:

Did the Industrial Relations Bureau investigate the Victoria Hotel Snack Bar in Darwin in relation to underpayment of wages and non-compliance with the relevant award of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; if so: (a) what were the matters investigated, and (b) what was the outcome of the investigation?

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The function of the Industrial Relations Bureau is to secure the observance of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1 904 and the Regulations and of awards of the Commission. I am informed that in fulfilling this function the Bureau conducted an inspection of records maintained by the employer of labour at the Victoria Hotel Snack Bar which employer is bound to observe the provisions of the Retail and Distributive Employees (NT) Award 1974.

The Bureau’s inspection embraced the various provisions of the Retail and Distributive Employees (NT) Award 1974.

The inspection revealed a number of matters requiring rectification including the correct application of clauses prescribing rates of pay, penalty payments and certain allowances. Those have since been rectified and the Bureau is now satisfied that the provisions of the Award have been complied with.

Avgas (Question No. 2010)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) How much avgas was imported into Australia in each year from 1974-75 to 1978-79 inclusive.

  2. ) What percentages of the total imports of avgas:

    1. were imported from which countries and
    2. were consumed in each State.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) and (2) (a) The attached table, supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, shows the volume of aviation gasoline imported into Australia, by country of origin, during 1977-78 and 1978-79. Petroleum import statistics for these two years have been subject to large scale revisions due to significant inconsistencies in the classification of refined petroleum products in the documents on which import statistics are based. The Australian Bureau of Statistics is unable to revise import statistics for earlier years as this would require access to the relevant import documents which are no longer available to them.
  2. (b) Details of consumption of imported aviation gasoline by State are not collected.

Oil Pricing (Question No. 2012)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. What are the definitions of new and old oil fields under the Government’s oil pricing arrangements.
  2. What is the position with fields which were discovered and exploited before 14 September 1975, but which it has subsequently been announced would be extended.
  3. ) Is the oil recovered from the extension regarded by the Government as new oil or old oil.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) New oil means any crude oil, not including natural gas liquids or condensate, discovered on or after 17 September 1975. Any such discovery shall be a naturally occurring discrete accumulation discovered as the result of drilling a well which after drilling is classified within one of the following categories:

New field discovery

New pool (pay) discovery

Deeper-pool discovery

Shallower-pool discovery

Old oil means oil discovered on or before 1 6 September 1975.

  1. and (3) Oil contained in extensions to fields and discovered as a result of drilling an outpost or extension test well drilled with the expectation of extending for a considerable distance the productive area of partly developed fields discovered before 1 7 September 1 975, is classified as old oil.

Bass Strait Oil Fields (Question No. 2013)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister or his department sought from the BHP-Esso group: (a) the costs, or marginal costs, of developing and exploiting the new areas within the Bass Strait oil fields; and (b) the cost associated with the exploitation of marginal areas within existing Bass Strait oil fields; if so, have BHP or Esso agreed to provide the Minister or his department with this information and, if so, what is the estimated cost of exploiting the additional resources.
  2. What have been the reasons given for any refusal to supply the information.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Information on the costs of developing the Bass Strait oil fields is provided to my Department on a confidential basis in connection with the operation of the crude oil pricing policy and offshore petroleum royalty collections.

The companies concerned from time to time release such information, eg. press release of 28 December 1979 indicated that Flounder development will cost $250m; and release of 10 January 1980 that Fortescue development is estimated to cost $240m.

Office of Local Government, Perth (Question No. 2021)

Senator Rocher:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has an Office of Local Government been established in Perth, as foreshadowed in the announcement of 25 May 1979; if not, when will the Office be established.
  2. How many staff will be required for the Office, and what is the estimated cost for the first full year’s operation.
  3. Will the role of the Office include direct communication with local government.
  4. Is the measure fully supported by the Western Australian Government.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The functions and staffing of the Office were approved by the Public Service Board on 1 7 August. It will be located in Canberra within the Department of National Development.
  2. The Office will have 12 staff. The cost of salaries over a full year will be about $2 1 8,000, to which will be added normal overheads.
  3. The Office will provide a focal point at the Commonwealth level, to which local government can relate, for the many areas of Commonwealth responsibility affecting local government. However, contact will normally be with the ACLGA or relevant State LGA rather than with 865 individual councils.
  4. The creation of the Office was announced at the Local Government Ministers’ Conference in Perth. State Ministers noted the announcement and expressed a wish to be kept informed of the Office’s role and activities.

Electoral: Doomadgee Mission, Queensland (Question No. 2043)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1 979:

Was an officer of the Department of Administrative Services sent to Doomadgee Mission, Queensland, on polling day in 1977; if so, for what purpose.

Senator Chaney:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

For the election of 10 December 1977 the Australian Electoral Office arranged for a number of Commonwealth and State Public Service officials to act as observers at some polling places where numbers of non-literate voters were expected to attend. The purpose essentially was to report upon the conduct of the poll so that the Australian Electoral Office can better provide assistance for such voters by way of education and other programmes and develop training and special instructions for polling officials. Some 45 polling places including the Doomadgee Mission were visited in the Divisions of Leichhardt, Maranoa, Kalgoorlie and the Northern Territory.

Federal General Election, December 1977 (Question No. 2057)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which publishers or proprietors of which newspapers filed returns pursuant to section 153 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1 9 1 8 in respect of the Federal General Election of December 1977.
  2. What are the details of those returns.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) The returns to be made by newspaper proprietors or publishers pursuant to section 1 53 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act must be filed with the Australian Electoral Officer for the State in which the newspaper is published within 12 weeks after the result of the election has been declared. Section 153 returns in respect of Senate and House of Representatives elections in the Australian Capital Territory and Senate elections in the Northern Territory are filed with the Chief Australian Electoral Officer, and in respect of House of Representatives elections in the Northern Territory with the Returning Officer for the Territory.

Every return made in pursuance of this section is open to public inspection on payment of a fee of fifty cents in respect of each return inspected.

As all returns lodged with the Australian Electoral Officers, Chief Australian Electoral Officer and the Returning Officer for the Northern Territory are available for inspection by senators, it is not proposed to make information from the returns otherwise available.

Meetings of Ministers on 31 May 1979 (Question No. 2060)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 11 October, the following question:

Did the Minister (a) attend; and (b) preside over, a meeting of Ministers between 11.15am and 3.15 pm on 31 May 1979.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the reply provided by the Prime Minister to his question No. 206 1 .

Commonwealth Police Force: Sydney and Tullamarine Airports (Question No. 2065)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the current approved establishment of:

    1. plain clothes members; and
    2. uniformed members, of the Commonwealth Police Force at
    1. Kingsford-Smith Alport, Sydney; and
    2. Tullamarine Airport, Melbourne.

  2. What are the current staff numbers in each of the above categories of officers at each airport.

Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

It is not in the national interest to reveal such detailed information as the honourable senator seeks. The honourable senator may care to note that the answer to Senate Question No. 1427 (Hansard, 4 April 1979, page 1349) revealed the number of Commonwealth Police at Sydney Airport but did not specify the numbers on duty at either the domestic or international terminals, thus maintaining the integrity of airport security.

Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust (Question No. 2077)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

Is any upper limit to be placed on the contribution of public money to the Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust by either: (a) direct cash gift; or (b) loss of revenue resulting from tax deductibility of private donations to the Trust; if so, what is the limit.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. As I announced at the launching of the Appeal for the Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust on 15 May 1979, the Government has decided to donate $2 million to the Appeal. The Commonwealth will also match on a dollar for dollar basis all donations received by the Trust Appeal until 15

May 1980 which is the anniversary of the launching of the - Appeal.

  1. The announcement of IS May indicated that donations to the Appeal will be tax deductible. Normal income tax gift provisions apply and the cost to revenue will depend on the amount of private donations.

Avgas (Question No. 208S)

Senator McAuliffe:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Queensland Government recently decided to investigate the possibility of producing avgas at the Maranoa Oil Refinery at Roma.
  2. Was the Department of National Development invited to buy the refinery when it was up for sale recently.
  3. Is the major reason that the refinery has not been producing avgas because samples had to be flown to Melbourne for testing either at Government establishments or at those owned by other oil companies, neither of which groups have a reputation for being particularly obliging to the refinery.
  4. What action is proposed, in view of the current critical avgas shortage, to provide financial assistance to the refinery’s owners to enable them to purchase the equipment necessary continually to test and rate avgas in Roma, so that the refinery does not have to send avgas samples to Melbourne.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Government has asked all refiners in Australia, including the proprietors of the Maranoa refinery, to investigate the possibility of manufacturing avgas at their refineries. I understand the Queensland Government may have made a similar request to the refiners operating in that State.
  2. No.
  3. and (4) The ownership of the refinery is currently in dispute and is the subject of court proceedings. Although the question of avgas manufacture at the refinery has been the subject of a preliminary study, the results of which were encouraging, no further progress can be made until the question of proprietorship is resolved.

Smelting (Question No. 2086)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. Has Alcoa (United States) developed, and is it installing, a new smelter process which uses 30 per cent less electricity than the old ‘Hall process’, as reported in Chemical and Engineering News, 4 June 1979.
  2. ) Of what, in brief, does the process consist.
  3. What action is proposed to stimulate plans for such a process to be introduced in Australia.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Aluminium Company of America is developing a new smelting process known as the ‘Alcoa Smelting Process ‘, which is expected to use substantially less electricity than is required by the Hall process.
  2. The Alcoa Smelting Process converts alumina and chlorine to aluminium chloride in a chemical plant. The aluminium chloride is then reduced to aluminium and chlorine in the electrolytic cells.
  3. The Alcoa Smelting Process is still under development and it will be some years before the technology is perfected and can be made available for commercial operation.

Re-cycled Oil (Question No. 2087)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Are nearly five million tonnes of lubricating oil used in Western Europe every year, half of which are re-cycled oil.
  2. What consideration has the Australian Government given to introducing a large scale re-cycling scheme of this nature.
  3. When will copies of reports prepared by officers of the Department of National Development and Energy and reports received from outside sources since April 1978, on the re-refining of lubricating oil in Australia, be made available to the Parliament.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Statistics are not readily available.
  2. This is primarily a matter for the oil industry and the respective State governments.
  3. 3 ) No such reports are available.

Re-cycled Oil (Question No. 2089)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) How much lubricating oil is sold in Australia each year.
  2. What percentage of lubricating oil is being re-cycled annually, and how is the remainder disposed of.
  3. What measures is the Government taking to ensure that it is disposed of in an environmentally acceptable way.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Australian consumption of lubricating oil in 1977-78 was 44 1,1 89 kilolitres.
  2. No precise figures available, it is understood a small proportion is reprocessed as lubricating oil; and a larger proportion is blended with fuel oil. The remainder is dumped.
  3. The environmental aspects are primarily the responsibility of the States. I understand that in the ACT the Department of the Capital Territory is installing collection tanks at appropriate places to receive waste oil from the general public and commercial interests.

Foreign Management of Australian Hospitals (Question No. 2097)

Senator O’Byrne:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

Are any Australian hospitals, or sections of hospitals, managed, but not owned, by: (a) Hospital Corporation of America; (b) American Medical International; or (c) Hospital Affiliates International; if so: (a) who are the owners of any such hospitals; and (b) what are the contractual arrangements.

Senator Guilfoyle:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

Commonwealth involvement in this area is limited to the approval of premises as a hospital under the Health Insurance Act for the payment of hospital benefits. Such approval is granted to an authority or body of persons that has l awful control of the premises. The requirements of the Act do not extend to matters concerning the appointment of hospital management and therefore the information sought is not held.

Parliament House Parking Area (Question No. 2107)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 18 October 1979:

Are former members of Parliament, who are now lobbyists, entitled to park their cars in the areas reserved for the use of members of Parliament in the Parliament House parking area.

Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

I am informed by my Department that:

Former members of Parliament are not entitled to park in areas reserved for the use of members of Parliament. Authorisations to park in such reserved spaces are issued annually upon application and are valid for one year. Generally they are issued or renewed only to current members or senators. The only known exception is one former Prime Minister who has applied for and been granted an authorisation although he is no longer in Parliament.

This having come to notice I have extended to former Prime Ministers the same parking entitlements as sitting members of Parliament.

Former Australian Service Officers: Employment of Lobbyists (Question No. 2109)

Senator O’Byrne:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

  1. Which defence equipment or component suppliers have offices in (a) Canberra; and (b) elsewhere in Australia.
  2. Which firms of lobbyists represent major suppliers of defence equipment, and which company or companies does each firm represent.
  3. Do any of the businesses in categories (1) and (2) above employ former Australian Service Officers, who, on resignation or retirement had reached the Army rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, its Navy or Air Force equivalent, or above; if so: (a) which companies; and (b) who are the former officers.
  4. Were any of the former officers involved in making procurement policy decisions during their service employment; if so: (a) which former officers; and (b) where were they employed during the final three years of their service careers.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Defence purchases equipment or components from thousands of suppliers in Australia or overseas, and most of these suppliers would have offices in Canberra or elsewhere in Australia. The Department does not keep records of the addresses of all the offices or agencies of these suppliers, mainly because it is the practice of the Department to conduct its equipment negotiations with principals, and not through branch offices or agencies.
  2. Information about the firms representing suppliers of defence equipment, such as the names of their clients, the names and backgrounds of their employees and the nature of the representational services provided to particular clients, is normally private to the firms concerned, and could properly be supplied only by those firms.
  3. and (4) The comprehensive information requested by the Senator is not available to the Department of Defence. Former members of the Defence Force are not obliged to inform the Department about their civilian employment, and attempts are not made to collect such information.

Health: Commonwealth-State Cost-Sharing Arrangements (Question No. 2151)

Senator O’Byrne:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:

What is the estimated initial annual cost to the Commonwealth of: (a) including psychiatric hospital beds in the present Commonwealth-State cost-sharing arrangements; and (b) paying to the States50 per cent of the total costs of psychiatric hospital beds.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Based on the limited information available to my Department it is estimated that the initial annual cost to the Commonwealth of including acute psychiatric hospitals and acute areas of psychiatric hospitals within the hospital cost sharing arrangements could be of the order of $40 million per annum.
  2. The estimate in (a) above is calculated on the basis that the Commonwealth Government would meet 50 per cent of approved net operating costs of the State acute psychiatric hospital systems.

Veterans’ Affairs Pensioners (Question No. 2162)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many Veterans ‘ Affairs pensioners are resident (as at 6 November 1979) in the Federal Electoral Divisions of: (a) Calare; (b) Macquarie; (c) Phillip; (d) Mackellar; (e) Warringah; (f) Cowper; (g) New England and (h) Gwydir.
  2. How many of the pensioners in each electorate are recipients of war widow’s pensions.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The information requested by the honourable senator is not available for the date 6 November 1979. The number of pensions paid, by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, in these electorates, as at 18 January 1980, is as follows:

Community Youth Support Scheme Project Offices (Question No. 2163)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What are the locations of Commonwealth Youth Support Scheme project offices in the Federal Electoral Divisions of: (a) Calare; (b) Macquarie; (c) Phillip; (d) Mackellar; (e) Warringah; (f) Cowper; (g) New England; and (h) Gwydir.
  2. What are: (a) the numbers; and (b) the gradings of staff members in each office.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. As at 20 November 1979 the following projects were operating in the Federal Electoral Divisions named:

    1. Calare- Bathurst, Orange, Wellington, Lithgow (Project to cease operating on 28.12.79 following the Local Committees decision to not seek refunding.)
    2. Macquarie- Penrith.
    3. Phillip-Nil.
    4. Mackellar-Nil.
    5. Warringah- Brookvale.
    6. f ) Cowper- Coffs Harbour, Bellingen, Grafton.
    7. New England-Armidale, Tamworth, Inverell.
    8. Gwydir- Cobar, Coonamble, Warren, Narromine, Dubbo.

  2. (a) and (b) the number of Project Officers employed and the gradings of staff members in each CYSS Project are as follows:

Bathurst-2 Project Officers. Orange-2 Project Officers. Wellington- 1 Project Officer, 1 Assistant Project Officer. Penrith-2 Project Officers. Brookvale-2 Project Officers. Coffs Harbour-2 Project Officers. Bellingen- 1 Full-time Project Officer, 1 Full-time Project Officer. Grafton-2 Project Officers. Armidale- 1 Full-time Project Officer, 2 Part-time Project Officers. Tamworth- 1 Senior Project

Officer, 2 Project Officers. Inverell- 1 Project Officer, 1 Assistant Project Officer. Cobar- 2 Project Officers. Coonamble- 1 Senior Project Officer, 1 Assistant Project Officer. Warren- 1 Part-time Assistant Project Officer. Narromine- 2 Project Officers. Dubbo- 1 Senior Project Officer, 1 Assistant Project Officer.

Blood Purchase by American Companies (Question No. 2165)

Senator O’Byrne:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:

  1. Which two American companies have applied for Federal Government approval to buy human blood in Australia.
  2. Do either of these companies have business links with any of the American investor-owned hospital companies currently operating in Australia (as at 6 November 1979).
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Unfortunately an announcement by the National Health & Medical Research Council at its October 1979 Session designed to support the voluntary donor system in Australia was not fully understood. No overseas country, either from the USA or elsewhere in the world has made formal application to the Commonwealth Government for approval to buy human blood in Australia. Except for New South Wales, ‘Sale of Blood’ legislation- exists in the States and Territories prohibiting sale and trading in human blood. In addition, the approval of the Commonwealth to export blood and blood products is required under Customs Regulations. No import or export approval for commercial transactions of blood products, has ever been granted.
  2. ) One US firm seeking importation approval to market a blood fraction had raised the possibility of exporting Australian plasma for overseas processing and return. However, as the proposal was not proceeded with, no investigation of the company was carried out. It is understood that this company has no links with any American investor-owned hospital companies operating in Australia.

Daylight Saving (Question No. 2180)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 7 November 1 979:

Does the Prime Minister stand by the answer he gave to a question without notice from the Member for Cunningham, Mr S. J. West, M.P., on 30 August 1979 (see House of Representatives Hansard, page 800).

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes.

Collection of Union Fees from Persons in the Commonwealth Payroll (Question No. 2199)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:

  1. Which public service unions were affected by the Government’s recent decision to cease compulsory collection of union fees from persons in the Commonwealth payroll.
  2. ) When was the decision implemented.
  3. What was the total membership of each of those unions at the time the decision was implemented.
  4. What is the latest estimated or actual, membership of each of the unions, as at 1 3 November 1 979.
  5. What percentage increase, or decrease, does the change in the number of members represent in each case.
  6. What do these variations in membership indicate in terms of support among individual employees for the concept of compulsory unionism.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (ACOA) and the Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) (APSA (FDO)) were affected by the Government’s decision to cease payroll deduction of unions ‘ dues in respect of their membership employed under the Public Service Act. In relation to the honourable senator’s reference to ‘compulsory’ collection of unions’ dues, I should point out that the payroll deduction facility has been provided as a service and is not a compulsory means of collection. The individual employee may elect to use the facility; equally the employee may elect to pay union dues by some other means or not belong to a union at all.
  2. The decision to cease the payroll deduction facility was implemented with effect from 16 August 1979 in respect of all Public Service Act Staff who were members of both Associations.
  3. As of 30 June 1979 the membership of the ACOA is recorded, in its October 1979 Federal Journal, as being 49,365. The APSA (FDO) Federal Journal of December 1 979 records a membership of 36,000.
  4. ACOA’s Federal Journal foi October 1979 recorded that the number of unfinancial members stood at 19,000 at 30 September 1979. Figures in respect of the APSA (FDO) are not available.
  5. Insufficient information is available to answer this question.
  6. As pointed out above, the payroll deduction facility is not a form of compulsory unionism. However, the unfinancial state of many members of both Associations following the withdrawal of the facility would reflect significant membership dissatisfaction with the policies adopted by the Associations in pursuing disruptive industrial tactics.

Building Materials Prices Indices for Darwin (Question No. 2200)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:

What action is proposed to review the decision not to commit funds to a Building Materials Prices Indices for Darwin before 1981-82, in the light of urgent requests from the Master Builders Association of the Northern Territory and the Northern Territory Department of Transport and Works.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Development of a Building Materials Price Index for Darwin would involve a significant workload which the Australian Statistician would be unable to undertake any earlier than 1981-82 except by diverting specialist staff from other work on price indexes.

The Statistician has given careful consideration to the determination of priorities in this area and has judged that the diversion of resources for this purpose could not be justified in view of other more urgent requirements for price index data, such as the development of an import price index.

Commonwealth Transport: Sir David Longland (Question No. 2212)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:

Did Sir David Longland receive Commonwealth transport in Brisbane on 23 October 1979; if so (a) what are the details of his entitlement and of his journey; and (b) to what Department or organisation was the journey charged.

Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

My Department has no record of a car booking for Sir David Longland in Brisbane on 23 October 1 979.

Australia Post Courier Service (Question No. 2216)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 3 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does a recent survey by the Commonwealth Employment Service show that the overall average cost of the Australia Post courier service, in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, is $1.90 per message, and the average cost per telegram is $3.70.
  2. What factors specifically account for this significant difference in costs.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) An agreement was reached earlier this year for Australia Post to provide a national system for the delivery of job notification advices on behalf of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) wherever delivery services are available. The system utilises Australia Post as its principal means of delivery within metropolitan areas of capital cities and in a few large provincial centres, with other Australia Post services being used in other country areas. Economies of scale permitted the negotiation of rates which proved acceptable to the CES.

The average delivery cost per message would be of the order of $ 1.90. However, because of the competitive nature of the courier industry, the details of charges negotiated with the CES are regarded as confidential. A comparison between the average rate charged by courier, and the cost of sending a telegram is not valid. The telegraph service involves the acceptance, transmission, receipt and delivery of telegrams throughout Australia. There is no control over the place or time of lodgement of messages, the number or the destination. Conversely, the courier agreement with CES provides for collection of messages from a predetermined point at a set time for delivery within a defined area. For this reason, it is possible for Australia Post courier to schedule the drivers’ daily activities to ensure that labour resources are used effectively. Because of these substantially different operational arrangements, it is reasonable and logical for the cost of delivering CES messages by Australia Post courier to be considerably lower than the average cost per telegram.

Coal Exports (Question No. 2221)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment the following question, upon notice, on 19 November 1 979:

Did the former Minister advise a member of the House of Representatives on 7 June 1978 that he was seeking the advice of the Attorney-General’s Department in order to clarify the legal position of the Commonwealth in relation to the proposals of the New South Wales Government regarding coal exports from Port Kembla.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The former Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Mr Groom, advised a member of the House of Representatives that he was seeking such legal advice. Aspects of this matter have been the subject of considerable departmental discussion and the matter is still under consideration.

Advertising: Alcohol and Tobacco (Question No. 2224)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 5 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the total annual value of advertising for: (a) alcoholic drinks; and (b) tobacco products.
  2. What is the estimated increase in Government revenue if advertising costs for these two classes of products cease to be tax deductible.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) and (2) Because adequate and up to date estimates of annual expenditures on advertising alcoholic drinks and tobacco products are not available, it is not possible to provide the revenue estimates sought.

Taiwanese Fishing Vessels (Question No. 2239)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Are some 150 Taiwanese fishing vessels reported to be registered in the port of Darwin.
  2. How many vessels have been registered to date.
  3. How many registrations are outstanding, and when is it expected that inspections will be completed.
  4. When is the first catch return expected.
  5. What shore facilities are being provided.
  6. What expectations of financial benefits are there for the Australian community.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. The Government has given approval for 150 Taiwanese vessels (120 trawlers and 60 gillnetters) to enter Darwin to undergo inspection prior to receiving their licences to fish in approved areas of the Australian fishing zone.
  2. Sixty-three vessels had been inspected and issued with licences as at 22 November 1 979.
  3. Eighty-seven vessels are yet to enter Darwin to be inspected and receive their licences. The inspection of foreign fishing vessels is an on-going process and licensed Taiwanese vessels are required to enter Darwin for prefishing and post-fishing inspections during each fishing operation.

  4. Fish catches by Taiwanese vessels are being monitored by two processes:

    1. upon commencement of fishing, vessels are required to radio a catch report to the Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre every six days;
    2. at the time of licensing, Taiwanese masters are issued with fishing log books into which details of catch by species must be entered. The log books are collected when the vessel has its post fishing inspection before it returns to Taiwan.
  5. No special shore facilities are being provided in Darwin for the Taiwanese fleet. Vessels are using normal commercial harbour facilities although every effort is being made by the various authorities to expedite the inspection and licensing procedures.
  6. There are several ways in which Australia will benefit financially from the operation of Taiwanese and other foreign fishing fleets in the AFZ. There is a direct cash benefit from the payment of access fees by foreign countries to fish in the AFZ. It is anticipated that approximately $3m will be paid by foreign fishing interests this financial year.

Visits by licensed foreign fishing vessels to approved Australian ports will also generate income in various sectors, for example, from the purchasing of provisions, crew rest and reaction activities and payment of various harbour dues. Moreover, the requirements placed on licensed foreign fishing vessels to provide resource data and other details of their fishing operations will provide an information base on which to plan and develop the management of Australian fisheries for the longer term benefit the industry and the Australian community generally.

Pro Forma Agreement on Engagement of Solicitors (Question No. 2247)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 19 November 1979:

Has the Department of the Capital Territory had a pro forma agreement drawn up to elaborate the need for spouses to engage a solicitor in relation to mortgages, as outlined in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Second Annual Report 1 979, page 82; if so, when was this pro forma put into use.

Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am informed by my Department as follows:

Yes, since 20 September 1979.

National Wage Adjustments (Question No. 2249)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

Have new procedures now been adopted in relation to payment of National Wage adjustments to civilians employed on a casual basis, as outlined in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Second Annual Report 1979, Page 83; if so what are the details of the new procedures.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister of Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes. The new procedures are:

The Regional Finance Officers in each State are now responsible for originating the necessary adjustments in lieu of Units/Establishments.

On receipt of a National Wage Case determination, Regional Finance Officers examine all salary or wage history cards and prepare adjusting paysheets where necessary. Adjustments are then paid, normally by cheque, as soon as possible after notification of a new determination.

Fremantle Class Patrol Boats (Question No. 2255)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

Is the Royal Australian Navy proposing to fit Emerlec 30 guns to 7 of the Fremantle class patrol boats; if so: (a) is this because the Royal Australian Navy has found itself with extra funds; and (b) how much will this fit cost.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

In answer to a Question Without Notice on 3 April 1979 by the Honourable Member for Forrest (Hansard Page 1394) concerning the guns to be fitted to the Fremantle Patrol Boats I advised him of the Government’s decision to fit for the time being the Bofors 40/60 Mk 7 gun to the new Fremantle class patrol boat. Certain clear considerations prevailed in taking that decision, not the least of which were considerations of cost. In illustration one tender received for 18 new guns predicted an expenditure of approximately $33m. The Royal Australian Navy, in terms of priority, had demands ahead of that expenditure. The Fremantle class patrol boat will not be operating in any hostile environment, it will not be fulfilling an offensive role.

The intended operational role of these craft has in no way changed since that time to give the Government cause to review its decision to fit them with the Bofors Guns.

Mining of Uranium (Question No. 2257)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 20 November 1979;

Did a breach in a tailings dam wall at a uranium mine in New Mexico on 16 July 1979 cause the escape of 400 million litres of liquid waste; if so: (a) will this further evidence of the danger involved in uranium mining affect any of the environmental approvals given, or proposed to be given, in respect of uranium mines in Australia; and (b) will the accident have any effect on the Australian Government ‘s code in respect of the management of wastes from the mining of uranium.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Yes. (a) and (b) The results of investigations by United States authorities into the causes of the breach in the tailings dam wall will be studied by Australian officials to determine the implications for Australian uranium mining operations. The code of practice on management of wastes from the mining and milling of uranium ores presently being developed by the Commonwealth in consultation with the States will take account of the results of the investigations by United States authorities.

Japanese Loan (Question No. 2258)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Will the proceeds of the 40 billion Yen, raised in Japan recently and announced by the Treasurer on 26 October 1 979, be retained in Japan or remitted to Australia.
  2. How will the funds be reinvested, if they are to be retained in Japan, and what rate of interest will the Australian Government receive.
  3. For what purpose will the funds be used if they are to be remitted to Australia.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The net proceeds of the Commonwealth ‘s Y40 billions institutional loan raised in Japan in October 1979 were sold to the Reserve Bank and the Australian currency equivalent received into the Loan Fund on 30 October 1 979.
  2. The Japanese yen proceeds received by the Reserve Bank were added to Australia’s international reserves and, as such, invested by the Reserve Bank.
  3. The Australian dollar proceeds of the loan taken into the Loan Fund will be applied against financial assistance payments to the States under the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Act 1978.

Qantas Airways Ltd: Overseas Loans (Question No. 2259)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What were the total exchange losses incurred by Qantas Airways Limited on overseas loans negotiated for the purpose of purchasing aircraft
  2. On what date was each loan negotiated, in what currency was each loan negotiated and when is each loan repayable.
  3. What overseas loans have been negotiated by other Australian statutory authorities for the purpose of purchasing equipment or other purposes.
  4. When was each loan mentioned in part (3) above negotiated, for what amount, in what currency, and when will each loan be repayable.
  5. What exchange losses or gains are applicable to each such loan.
  6. What provisions are made for Australian statutory authorities to cover themselves against foreign exchange losses.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) to ( 5 ) I note that the information sought in the honourable senator’s question falls mostly outside my portfolio responsibilities and I am informed that the information is not readily available. To obtain this information would require the expenditure of considerable effort and man hours both by officers of my own Department and by others which I am not prepared to authorise in the first case or to seek in the second.
  2. Official forward cover facilities available through the banking system are designed basically to enable the private sector to cover exchange risks on trade transactions and some closely related invisible transactions. Consequently official forward exchange facilities are not available to Government departments or organisations which are essentially part of a Government department. Official forward cover facilities are usually available, however, to public corporations if they are involved in commercial operations and if they are entirely dependent upon revenue raised in the pursuit of these commercial operations.

Official forward cover is not available for capital transactions. Statutory authorities may seek to cover their foreign currency exposure arising from capital transaction, or any other transaction ineligible for official forward cover, in the interbank or intercompany currency hedging markets.

Women’s Royal Naval Service (Question No. 2266)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

Has a revised system of Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service applicant processing been introduced, as outlined in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Second Annual Report 1979, page 83; if so, what are the details of the revised system.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. A revised system for the control of applications, and processing WRANS applicants was instituted on 1 February 1979. 2. (a) All applications from young ladies throughout Australia wishing to enter the WRANS are logged, by category, in chronological order of receipt. Each applicant is allocated a category number indicating her position on the waiting list.

    1. As vacancies occur for particular categories and intakes, the necessary number of applicants are called in for testing for those vacancies.
    2. Experience has shown that the success ratio is about 1 in 4, therefore applicants are called in at 4 times the number required to fill the vacancies. If a higher acceptance ratio occurs, a short wait-list of fully processed applicants is drawn up, for the subsequent intake. This can be easily controlled.
    3. The names of young ladies on the lists awaiting processing are revalidated quarterly.

Communication of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decisions (Question No. 2267)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 19 November 1979:

Has the Department of the Capital Territory now introduced a system to provide for the more rapid communication of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions as outlined in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Second Annual Report 1979, page 83: if so, what are the details of the new system.

Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

I am informed by my Department as follows:

Before 14 December 1978, the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office represented the Minister in appeals under the Rates Ordinance to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The complaint mentioned in the Ombudsman’s Second Annual Report 1979 was occasioned by a delay in the transmission of advice from the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office to the Department of the Capital Territory as to the outcome of an appeal.

Since 14 December 1978 the respondent Minister has been represented in rating appeals by officers of the Department of the Capital Territory. Immediately a copy of a decision has been served on the respondent pursuant to section 43 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, it is referred to the area of the Department responsible for the preparation of rates assessments.

In cases where the Tribunal ‘s decision is to vary a valuation made by the Minister under the Rates Ordinance, validating documentation is immediately forwarded to the rates accounts section where the appropriate credit is passed to the owner’s account. This process is normally completed within three or four days. If the account is in credit, advice is sought from the ratepayer as to whether a refund is required or a deduction is to be made from the next account.

Commonwealth Reporting Service: Applicants for Employment (Question No. 2268)

Senator Colston:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

Has the Attorney-General’s Department changed procedures in relation to applicants for employment in the Commonwealth Reporting Service as outlined in the Commonwealth Ombudsman ‘s Second Annual Report 1979, page 82; if so, what are the details of the changed procedures.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Yes. Prior to the change unsuccessful applicants for positions in the Commonwealth Reporting Service were advised of the result of their application at the completion of the recruitment process. They are now advised progressively. The details are as follows:

Applicants for Court Reporting Typist positions who fail the requisite typing test are advised in writing immediately by the Principal Reporter in the State in which the position is located.

Applicants for positions of Associate Reporter or Reporter who fail the requisite shorthand test are advised in writing immediately by the Chief Reporter or Principal Reporter.

Those applicants who pass the typing or shorthand test but are not considered suitable for appointment are advised in writing by the Central Office of the Department.

Agreement on Coal Research Co-operation (Question No. 2280)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1979:

Has the Department of National Development entered into a number of agreements on coal research co-operation with authorities in the United States, the United Kingdom and West Germany; if so: (a) what are the obligations of the Australian Government under these agreements; (b) are the patent rights of Australian corporations protected under these agreements; and (c) when will the agreements be made public.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Yes: the Department of National Development and Energy has entered into agreements with the Department of Energy and the Bureau of Mines in the USA, the National Coal Board of the UK, and the Federal Ministry of Research and Technology in West Germany.

The arrangements with the USA and the UK simply provide a framework for exchange of scientific information and co-operation in research topics of mutual interest, and place the Australian Government under no specific obligations. The arrangement with the FRG Ministry of Research and Technology is for the conduct of a joint coaltooil feasibility study to which the four Australian partners (Australian Government and the State Governments of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria) are committed to provide equal shares of half the total cost of DM 8 million for the study.

Yes.

The substance of the agreements has already been made public in various press statements and in written advice to all State Government Ministers responsible for energy matters.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 February 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800219_senate_31_s84/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant