1977-03-15 30 2 1 REPS 171 0 1977-03-15 Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. B. M. Snedden, Q.C.) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers. 171 miscellaneous 171 QS4 Wannon LP Prime Minister 1 0 FRASER, Malcolm Mr MALCOLM FRASER - Last Thursday, 10 March, John Armstrong, a man who had held public office in Parliament, overseas and in his home State of New South Wales over a span of 40 years died suddenly at Bateman's Bay on the New South Wales coast which he loved so much. John Armstrong was a straightforward man, blunt, open, forceful and without a trace of sophistry or cynicism. He was a most likeable person with an earthy sense of humor and was much respected by all who knew him or worked with him. He was also a man of moderation. Many politicians forget that if they speak with hyperbole and rancour, they may exacerbate public feelings, deepen public divisions and bring disrespect to the Parliament. John Armstrong was well aware of that danger and managed to put forward his own point of view with strength and vigour while tempered with moderation and humour. It is no wonder that he proved to be a success in the many public offices that he held. There were many public offices that he did hold over his long career of public service. In 1934 he became an alderman of the City of Sydney and 3 years later he was elected to the Senate. He represented New South Wales in the Senate for 24 years, during which time he was a Minister of the Crown for 3 years and later Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for 5 years. After leaving the Senate, he again became active in local government and in 1965 he achieved a lifelong ambition by being elected Lord Mayor of Sydney. He brought great flair and imagination to that office. In 1973 he was appointed High Commissioner to London. His style was not that of his predecessors in that office yet he served Australia forthrightly but discreetly and well. Our continuing good relations with Britain owe much to his tenure of that office. One of the initiatives which John Armstrong long advocated was the introduction of an Australian honours system. It is most fitting that he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia last Australia Day. Sadly, he died before being invested with the insignia of that Order. A State funeral was held for him yesterday in Sydney. At the Requiem Mass at St Mary's Cathedral which was attended by the Attorney-General on my behalf, Cardinal Freeman paid tribute to the attractive consistency of his character. John Armstrong held many positions of power and influence but throughout he remained himself, plainly speaking his views without pretension. John Armstrong served his party and his country well. I talked with him only last week and he seemed to be greatly enjoying his well earned retirement. It is sad that he could not have had longer to enjoy it. The Government extends it profound sympathy to his wife Joan and to his 5 children. I move: That this House expresses its deep regret at the death on 10 March 1 977 of the Hon. John Ignatius Armstrong, A.C., a senator for New South Wales from 1938 to 1962, a Minister of the Crown from 1946 to 1949; Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate from 1951 to 1956, Lord Mayor of Sydney from 1965 to 1967, and High Commissioner for Australia to the United Kingdom from 1973 to 1975; places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and family in their bereavement. 171 6U4 Werriwa ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr E G Whitlam - Last Tuesday many members were in John Armstrong 's company at the Parliament 's reception to Her Majesty the Queen. Yesterday many of us were at the State funeral for John Armstrong in Sydney. One can hardly think of an Australian who served his country in such a wide range of appointments and at so many levels of government. In local government, in the national Parliament, as a diplomatist, as a Minister, as a public servant, he put his remarkable and versatile talents at the service of his countrymen. He had an incomparable breadth of experience in public life and attracted a remarkable fund of goodwill and affection. He gave distinguished service to the people of Sydney, first as an alderman at 26 years of age and finally as an able and popular Lord Mayor; to the people of New South Wales as a senator for 24 years; to the people of Australia as a Minister in the Chifley Government and High Commissioner to London. His appointment to London was one of the first appointments of my Government. There was some niggling criticism of it at the time, as I recall, but to the surprise of no one who had any acquaintance with him he proved himself an accomplished representative of Australia. He filled the post with immense professional competence and absolute personal distinction. It was a fitting and well merited conclusion to his public career. It was typical of him that he saw the post not as a reward or a diversion but as a last challenge to his superb gifts as a negotiator, a diplomat, an engaging companion, and a warm and delightful host. John Armstrong was above all a man of supreme good humour and irrepressible and irresistible personal charm. Through the 1940s and 1950s he was the Fred Daly of the Senate. His love of life, his natural high spirits, drew much of their strength from a diversity of interests, both inside and outside the political world, from contact with ordinary people and not least from the secure and sustaining strength of a very close family, a very happy family. On one nomination for the Senate he listed his occupation as barman. He was in fact an excellent mixer of drinks as he was an excellent mixer with people. They are assets that any politician can admire and envy. He was a good sportsman. As a welterweight in the 1930s he beat the late Frank Packer in a charity bout at Marist Brothers in Darlinghurst. I am told, and I can believe it, that he won it. He was never one to let a Press proprietor get him down. He built up one of the best art collections in Australia. He helped to discover several Australian painters. He was a friend of many of them. He was an excellent judge and a generous patron. His collection was greatly admired during his term in London. He embellished Australia House. Quite early in his political career he confided to his friends two personal ambitions above all others- to be Lord Mayor of Sydney and to be High Commissioner to London. He achieved the first by his own efforts in 1965; I am proud that I played some part in helping him to fulfil the second. He welcomed me to London at Easter 1973 and Christmas 1974. He returned to Australia the following year. In the last months of his life he was never without friends, and he was never without interests and enjoyments. He was made a Companion of the Order of Australia in the Australia Day Honours. The award was ideally suited to the man and the man was ideally suited to the award. Indeed it was precisely for men and women of his character, temperament, background and achievement that a distinctive system of Australian honours was needed and devised. His friends and colleagues were gladdened by the news. That award, together with the later marriage of his eldest daughter, brought his life to a close on a note of serene personal happiness and public and private fulfilment. He deserved no less. He will be missed by his colleagues in the Parliament and in the Labor Party as a wise counsellor and a good and valued friend. But above all, there are thousands of men and women- young and old-in all walks of life, who will remember him with respect and affection. 172 BU4 Richmond NCP/NP Leader of the National Country Party 0 0 ANTHONY, Doug Mr ANTHONY - I should like to join with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) in extending on behalf of the National Country Party our deepest sympathy to the family of John Armstrong and to pay a tribute to the very distinguished career of this man. I think John Armstrong, first and foremost, was a gentleman. He was a most likeable person. As the Leader of the Opposition said, he was a man with a personal charm. I am very pleased to be able to say that I was able to talk with him last Tuesday night. Whilst his health obviously did not look good, that same twinkle, that same sparkle was with him. He was one of the first members of Parliament I knew. He came to my electorate in the election campaign when I first stood for election. We always had a lasting friendship even though he was on the other side of the House. I think this was the style of the man with everyone. He had friends no matter where they might be or in what political party. For a man to have had such a wide-ranging career as he had as a member of the Chifley Cabinet, as Lord Mayor of Sydney, as High Commissioner and as a parliamentarian with a distinguished Senate career, it is truly right that we should remember him on this occasion. I convey to his family on the occasion of this very sad bereavement the sympathies of my Party. 172 KUX Lang 0 0 STEWART, Francis Mr STEWART -My colleagues who have preceded me in these condolences have covered fully the history of the service to Australia and the outstanding record as a citizen, husband and father of the late John Armstrong. I agree with their comments. I could add many more personal anecdotes; however, I want only to add my personal tribute. I have lost a fine friend, a man whom I loved. Australia has lost a patriotic and exemplary son and the Labor Party has lost a convinced and loyal servant. To his wife Joan and their children, Catherine, Margaret, John, Mary-Anne and Patricia, I extend the heartfelt sympathy of myself, my wife Maureen and our children. I know that Joan and her children, as a Christian family, would want all of us here assembled to add our prayers to theirs, so I say: Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, Let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. 172 JF7 Fremantle 0 0 BEAZLEY, Kim Mr BEAZLEY -I think the speech of the Right Honourable Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) illustrates the fact about John Armstrong that though he had many convinced opponents, he had no enemies. I think that was because of a characteristic he had of being singularly free from any sort of rancour though convinced about his views and attitude- The circumstances under which his lord mayoralty of Sydney were terminated still left him as a man of great grace and great freedom from rancour towards his opponents who had used their State power to set aside the City of Sydney elections. He was one of the members of the Chifley Ministry when I was first elected. I think there are 3 survivors- I mention offhand Mr Pollard, Mr Makin and Mr Ford. John Armstrong was one of the youngest members of that ministry and one of the men with a great deal of wisdom in any position which he occupied. Because of his humanity and his humour he had the capacity to conduct first class public relations without setting out to conduct any form of public relations. He was, as I have said, a man respected by people who were very much opposed to him. As High Commissioner in London he and his wife Joan were a remarkably gracious host and hostess. I know that the motion that has been moved is an expression to Joan Armstrong of the tremendous appreciation held here for her husband. Her life must be enlightened by many happy memories of the grace of his personality as well as sorrow in the loss. I feel that honourable members of this House will realise that the capacity that he had to encourage will be abiding with his family still. 173 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - I shall miss the friendship which John Armstrong gave me. I personally express my sympathy to his widow, Joan. Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable members standing in their places. 173 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - I thank the House. 173 petition 173 10000 0 0 CLERK, The The Clerk - Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: 173 To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned concerned citizens respectfully showeth: Australia's extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State Funding. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure: That the Commonwealth Government's long-term policy should be to provide SO per cent of all funding for Australia s roads. That at a minimum the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations by the Australian Council of Local Government Associations for the allocation of $5,903m of Commonwealth, State and Local Government funds to roads over the five years ending 1980-81, of which the Commonwealth share would be 41 per cent as recommended by the Bureau of Roads. by Mr Adermann, Mr Bonnett, Mr Braithwaite, Mr Carige, Mr Corbett, Mr Drummond, Mr Groom, Mr Hodges, Mr Hurford, Mr Hyde, Mr Kelly, Mr Porter, Mr Eric Robinson, Mr Wallis and Mr Wilson. Petitions received. 173 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the delays between announcements of each quarterly movement in the Consumer Price Index and their application as a percentage increase in age and invalid pensions is excessive, unnecessary, discriminatory and a cause of economic distress to pensioners. That proposals to amend the Consumer Price Index by eliminating particular items from the Index could adversely affect the value of future increases in age and invalid pensions and thus be a cause of additional economic hardship to pensioners. The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to: Require each quarterly percentage increase in the consumer price index to be applied to age and invalid and similar pensions as from the pension pay day nearest following the date of announcement of the CPI movement. Give an open assurance to all aged and invalid pensioners that any revision of the items comprising the consumer price index will in no way result in reductions in the value of any future entitlements to pensioners. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Klugman, Mr MacKenzie, Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Ruddock. Petitions received. 173 To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned concerned citizens respectfully showeth: Australia's extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate Federal and State funding. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 percent. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure: That the Commonwealth Government adopts the recommendations of the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads for the funding of rural local roads and urban local roads in New South Wales for the triennium 1 977- 1 980. by Mr Bradfield and Mr MacKenzie. Petitions received. 174 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned members of the Order of the White Cross, a humanitarian Knighthood for the Defence and Protection of Life and residents of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth: That the undersigned petitioners are deeply concerned with the rapid diminution of Australia's forest and timber reserves and more so with the consequence of the forest diminution, an equal increase of the wastelands, and that this, our concern, must be the concern of the Government and the people of the entire Nation since the continuation of the present forest policy must affect the environment, the climate and the future economy badly. It is a fact that: Australian commercial enterprises import large quantities of timber from foreign countries, being aware that the need for this important raw material is steadily increasing and that little efforts are made to meet the demands of the future from Australian forest resources. Underdeveloped countries, particularly countries of the Pacific Region reduce their forest wealth dramatically in order to obtain hard cash and to clear the land for its growing populations, while Australia shows no intention to provide for its own needs when supplies from foreign countries cease to be available but adopts a course of 'Wait and see'. It is said that the World- Oil resources will be exhausted in the near future and that such an event shall create the most severe energyproblem. It is beyond mans capability to create new oil deposits, but it would surely be our all fault and responsibility if the resources of wood run out as well. The greater part of the Australian continent consists of wasteland and dry bush and that the desert proceeds further and further towards the coast-line due to the lack of forestbelts, which act as biological barriers against the devastation of the land and constitute climatic Buffer-zones resulting in moderate rainfall. The rapid diminution of forests throughout the World has already attracted the concern of many Scientists since changes in the Atmosphere to the disadvantage of life must be expected. Many people and organisations, schools and unemployed would like to participate in a massive afforestation program if the Government would support the work and this in return would remove a lot of social stagnation during times of unemployment and depression. The undersigned petitioners offer herewith their contribution, financial, physical or moral, as the case may be for any sensible afforestation project and the Order of the White Cross as a whole offers its service wholeheartedly to play an active part in an undertaking of this kind, since the Defence and Protection of Life is its main object. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Government takes steps to provide Crown Land and set aside funds for the acquisition of Freehold land for the purpose of afforestation and conducts negotiations for the execution of the programs with the State Governments concerned, make Grants of such land to non-profitable organisations which would be willing to start a planting and maintenance work. The Government directs its Forest-Nurseries to prepare and provide maximum numbers of seedlings of all desired types to be used in areas suitable for growing and that these seedlings should be made available free of charge. The Government encourages landowners by way of Tax concessions to undertake private afforestations on land pieces unsuitable for farming. The Government appoints a Commission for the development of a Master-plan for the revitalisation of the land with the aim to establish an alternate forestfarm belt around Australia, supported by constructed irrigation lakes and implemented by self efficient Farm-communities, similar to thosein Israel. Even taking into account that an undertaking of this kind may require the work of Generations and also great sacrifices, the project must gain victory over the arid lands, the drought, the emtines and reward the Nation with wealth and prosperity. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony. Petition received. 174 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances. The continuance of the means test on pensions causes undue hardship to them. We call on the Government to immediately abolish the means test on all aged pensions. To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity. Acknowledge that a pension is a 'right and not a charity'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley. Petition received. 174 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Zone Allowance Provisions currently included in the Income Tax Assessment Act require variation from the point of view of boundaries and value of the allowance in view of the substantial changes of circumstances over the last decade, brought about by the coal mining enterprises in the Central Queensland Highlands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. Petition received. 174 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we request that your Government take immediate action to have established at Moranbah, A.B.C. Television without further delay. by Mr Braithwaite. Petition received. 175 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That a Citizen Radio Service should be introduced on the 27 MHz frequency band incorporating frequencies 26.965 MHz to 27.255 MHz enabling use of good quality 23 channel AM and AM/SSB radio equipment currently available on the Australian Market. There shall also be additionally an extension of this service provided for the VHF/UHF spectrum within 3 years as the usage of the Citizen's Radio Service increases. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should, immediately introduce legislation to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act and regulations to allow such a Citizen's Radio Service to function legally. These amendments should allow the Service to develop to the benefit of the people and also allow self regulation through the National Citizen's Radio Association as the united representative body of Citizen 's Radio Operators working in conjunction with your Departmental Representatives. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Haslem. Petition received. 175 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliment assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia repectfully 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 Mr Jarman. Petition received. 175 To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned concerned citizens respectfully showeth: Australia's extensive road system is a national asset wasting because of inadequate funding. Commonwealth Government funding of roads has fallen over the last six years from 2.9 per cent of all Commonwealth outlays to 2.3 per cent. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should ensure: That the Commonwealth Government should totally finance national highways and half the cost of contracting and maintaining all other public roads. That since current road funding arrangements have seen a deterioration in road assets, this backlog in construction and maintenance needs to be reduced by the Commonwealth Government undertaking to make a larger financial contribution. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr King. Petition received. 175 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the existence of a system of double taxation of personal incomes whereby both the Australian Government and State Governments had the power to vary personal income taxes would mean that taxpayers who worked in more than one State in any year would: be faced with complicated variations in his or her personal income taxes between States; and b ) find that real after-tax wages for the same job would vary from State to State even when gross wages were advertised as being the same; and require citizens to maintain records of income earned in each State. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a system of double income tax on personal incomes be not reintroduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Morris. Petition received. 175 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Television is the single most influential medium for the dissemination of information and for the recording and development of our national identity and culture; Children are the most important section of the viewing public in that they are most likely to be affected by the impact of television; Australian children, on average, spend more time watching television than in school; And believing that: The basic problem behind the lack of programs designed for children is the fundamental divergence of aims between those primarily intersted in the welfare of children and the commercial interests of television licensees and their shareholders. We request: The creation of an Establishment to initiate, research, promote, co-ordinate, fund and produce material for children's consumption through the medium of television, as recommended by Australian Children's Television Action Committee in its submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts 1973; The Australian Broadcasting Control Boards Advisory Committee Report 1974 and the Television Industry Co-ordinating Committee 1975, as a positive step toward providing better quality television for Austrian children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shipton. Petition received. 175 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth: That the public library services in New South Wales are inadequate both in quality and quantity and that the burden of provision is placed too heavily upon local government. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will ensure that implementation of the Recommendations of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries as a matter of urgency. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Uren. Petition received. 176 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are concerned about the future of the Australian Assistance Plan. That we request that the Commonwealth Government support the Australian Assistance Plan by providing for legislation and finance for the Plan on a national basis. That we feel this way, because the Australian Assistance Plan is making it possible for citizens to help themselves, especially those who need help the most, such as invalid, the inarticulate, and others, as evidenced by the work of the Western Adelaide Regional Council for Social Development over the last two years. That we believe that this represents the best possible use of limited government resources. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament take immediate steps to continue the Australian Assistance Plan as recommended in the report tabled by the Honourable, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Margaret Guilfoyle, in Parliament on 4 March 1976. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Young. Petition received. 176 miscellaneous 176 176 BV4 Denison 0 0 HODGMAN, Michael Mr HODGMAN -I give notice that at the next day of sitting I shall move: 1 ) That this House notes with sadness the death on Sunday, 13 March in Prague of Professor Jan Potocka, the 69 year old spokesman for Charter 77 human and civil rights manifesto, following his admission to hospital shortly after being interrogated for 1 1 hours at the Ruzyne Police Centre in Prague, Czechoslovakia. That this House further notes with profound regret that another signatory of Charter 77, Czechoslovak playwright, Vaclav Havel, is still in police custody over 2 months after publication of Charter 77. That this House again expresses the view that the minimal civil rights and freedoms as laid down in the Helsinki Pact of 1975 are not being observed in Czechoslovakia, and calls upon the Government of Czechoslovakia to restore basic civil rights, liberties and freedoms in that country. 176 176 KWZ Grey 0 0 WALLIS, Laurie Mr WALLIS - I give notice that at the next day of sitting I shall move: That in the opinion of this House: The main cause of the present crisic facing the beef cattle industry, was the large expansion in cattle numbers in the early 1 970s. The main impetus for the large growth in cattle numbers was the advice given by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government, including the present Prime Minister, the present Minister for Overseas Trade, and other Ministers, that beef producers increase their beef herds. In urging the increase in stock, they failed completely to fully assess future market prospects, and must as a result, accept the responsibility for the present parlous position of the beef industry. The removal of the beef export levy has proved a bonanza for the beef exporting companies, with the beef producers receiving none of the benefits from the removal of the levy. The advice of the Minister for Overseas Trade to producers to withhold stock from the market as a means of increasing prices is a clear indication that he believes that the beef exporting companies can afford to pay higher prices to the producers for their stock. Acceptance of the Minister for Overseas Trade's advice would result in increased interest payments for producers if they are to hold stock from the market, by denying themselves income to service their debts, will create peaks and lows by the fluctuations in the throughput of abattoirs, would disrupt transport arrangements, and would have a serious effect on our export trade generally. That the advice given by the Minister for Overseas Trade would run counter to his own predictions and the predictions of the Meat Board that the export market situation would improve, a situation that would not come about if beef producers accept the Minister's advice. 176 Questions 176 176 Questions 176 176 KSF Sydney ALP 0 0 MCMAHON, James Mr Les McMahon -Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware that imported castings are being landed in Australia more cheaply than local pig iron can be purchased and that these cheap imports are threatening local jobs? Is he also aware that the Federated Moulders (Metal) Union of Australia is expected to ask the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia not to handle these imported castings? Is he further aware that employees in the footwear, clothing and tyre manufacturing industries are also contemplating similar actions, with the encouragement of the employers, to safeguard their industries and employment? What assistance can employees in these industries expect from the Minister in the effort to ensure their continued employment? 176 ZD4 Bennelong LP Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs 1 0 HOWARD, John Mr HOWARD - I am aware of some Press reports regarding those 2 issues. Let me make it very clear at the outset that the basic problem of the uncompetiveness of Australian industry is the accumulated inflation of the last 3 or 4 years. Until that problem is solved Australian industry will continue to be uncompetitive with overseas industries and Australian jobs will continue to be at risk. We, as a parliament and as a country, would be deluding ourselves if we did not recognise that the cost disadvantage of manufacturing industry in Australia and, therefore, the threat to Australian employment is directly a result of the domestic cost explosion, particularly the wage explosion, during the term of office of the Whitlam Government. Time and time again that proposition is put. It surprises me that there are still people on the other side of the House who do not accept it. This Government is very concerned about the employment consequences of any decision it takes on tariff matters. Last year the Government set certain guidelines for the Industries Assistance Commission. In addition, the Government intends that in further references the Commission specifically address its mind to employment consequences, particularly of a social and regional nature. I refer to one other aspect of the honourable member's question, that is, the concern that there might be some kind of sympathy from or retaliatory action by various sections of the community. The present Government does not believe that that type of action is appropriate. It is not a type of action that the Government would encourage. What we would encourage is a fuller acceptance throughout the community of the basic reasons why Australian industry is uncompetitive reasons of the type that the Government has addressed to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission during the current national wage case. 177 Questions 177 177 BV4 0 0 HODGMAN, Michael Mr HODGMAN -My question, which I address to the Attorney-General, relates to the financial assistance provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the action of certain left wing trade union executives. Is it accepted by this Government that every trade unionist in Australia should have the basic right legally to challenge oppressive union rules and deliberate breaches of union rules without being intimidated out of court by the spectre of heavy legal costs? Has consideration been given to the guidelines of the component of 'hardship' for the purposes of section 141 A and 141B of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? 177 YF6 Wentworth LP Attorney-General 1 0 ELLICOTT, Bob Mr ELLICOTT -I think several weeks ago I answered a similar question which was directed by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. However, I wish to emphasise again that under sections 141 A and 14 IB, and I think 168, of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, there is provision for assistance to be given to unionists who find themselves in a position where they want to challenge oppressive rules or oppressive decisions. I would like to assure the honourable member that it is the Government's policy to put those provisions into action so that unionists will not be prevented from taking proceedings against other persons- the union leaders or the union itself- when those occasions arise. Last year I had occasion to look at the guidelines that apply in relation to these matters. They are not precisely the same as the means test guidelines that apply, for instance, in the Australian Legal Aid Office. They take into account other matters as well. But they are designed to deal with situations of the character that the honourable member has mentioned. The Government's intention is to see that those provisions are adequately provided for. The only thing that I would like to say in addition is that on occasions- and I do not mean to attack the legal profession when I say this- I have discovered situations where the costs do appear to be a little bit excessive. In one case the costs have gone well into 6 figures. I would hope that solicitors and other lawyers involved in this field would have a regard to the fact that the more they take up in this form of legal assistance the less there will be for others. 177 Questions 177 177 L6X Batman 0 0 GARRICK, Horace Mr GARRICK -Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that over 50 per cent of the 1523 people registered with the Heidelberg Commonwealth Employment Service in Victoria are under 2 1 years of age? Does he consider this to be a potentially grave sociological and economic problem as well as a political embarrassment? What plans, if any, does he have to help the young unemployed? 177 KVM Corangamite LP Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters 1 0 STREET, Anthony Mr STREET - I am not in a position to confirm the figures quoted by the honourable member but they would not be very much out of line with the sort of figures which are being experienced in other equivalent offices. Unlike the previous Government, this Government, in recognition of the particular unemployment problems of young people, has instituted a carefully progressed series of measures to cope with youth unemployment. In the first instance, the young unemployed, in common with all unemployed people, are eligible to apply for assistance from the National Employment and Training scheme under the same provisions as everyone else. That, of course, requires them first of all to test the labour market with their existing skills. If they cannot get a job with their existing skills, they are eligible for assistance under the NEAT program. I remind the House that we now have over 14 000 people in the NEAT program. Unlike the situation under the previous Government, the vast majority of these people are in productive employment learning on the job a skill for which there is a labour market demand. If they are unsuccessful in testing the labour market in that way and are unemployed for 6 months or more those employing them are eligible for a subsidy of $6 1 a week so long as they are providing an adequate course of training for these young people. So in those 2 ways the young unemployed are being quite specifically helped. In addition we have instituted the community youth support scheme to keep young people motivated towards work and to help local government organisations provide projects of their own choosing. I am happy to be able to report that at last count 66 projects were in action all over Australia in which some 12 000 young people were engaged. 178 Questions 178 178 FF4 Kingston 0 0 CHAPMAN, Grant Mr CHAPMAN -Is the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware of considerable concern among South Australians about proposals by the South Australian State Labor Government to expand the field of activity of the State Government Insurance Commission into areas such as life assurance? Will the Minister ensure that amendments to the Trade Practices Act implement the recommendations contained in chapter 10 of the Swanson Trade Practices Act Review Committee report that Commonwealth and State government instrumentalities should be subject to the provisions of the Trade Practices Act in the same way as the private sector and hence prevent socialist governments using unfair practices to destroy private enterprise? 178 ZD4 LP 1 0 HOWARD, John Mr HOWARD -Naturally, decisions to be taken regarding insurance activities within the competence of the South Australian Government are matters for the present South Australian Government, but I think all honourable gentlemen on the Government side of the House would be concerned if that Government unfairly intruded into an area which properly belonged to private enterprise. Nonetheless I can say to the honourable member that the present Commonwealth Government has taken a decision in principle, and the practical implementation of that decision will be reflected when this House has before it the Trade Practices Amendment Bill, which incorporates a number of changes that the Government has decided to make in the light of submissions it received on the first draft and in the light of matters raised in the debate on that draft. Nonetheless we have taken a decision in principle that the commercial activities of the Commonwealth Government ought to be subject to the same restraints as apply to the commercial activities of the private sector, with a number of national interest exceptions which it will be necessary to make. Whether the same principle is adopted by State governments is ultimately a matter for them, but I would hope and the Government would hope that the same evenhanded approach as we have decided to adopt will likewise be adopted by State governments. 178 Questions 178 178 2V4 Hindmarsh ALP 0 0 CAMERON, Clyde Mr Clyde Cameron - I ask the Minister for Productivity whether he has read a recent statement by the spokesman of a national advertising agency attacking him for what has been described as company bashing. Is there any truth in the report that the Minister has been reprimanded by the Prime Minister for his criticism of inefficent management and has been directed to join the rest of his colleagues in an orgy of union bashing? If so, does he intend to comply with the Prime Minister's directive? 178 6I4 Balaclava LP Minister for Productivity 1 0 MACPHEE, Ian Mr MACPHEE - I have read the article by Mr John Singleton. I have also read the editorial in last Saturday's Australian which carried with it the editor's interpretation of what Mr Singleton said I had said. I have not indulged in management bashing or any other kind of bashing, nor will I do so. The Prime Minister has not asked me to do so nor has he reprimanded me. The interesting thing about the editorial is that it bases its statements on Mr Singleton's interpretation of what I was alleged to have said. In Mr Singleton's account he said that I was given a standing ovation - 178 KJA 0 0 INNES, Urquhart Mr Innes - You have gone to water as you usually do. 178 6I4 0 0 MACPHEE, Ian Mr MACPHEE -Wait a minute. Mr Singleton said that I had been given a standing ovation by the businessmen and that they were as insane as I was. The editorial and Mr Singleton's comments are mischievous in the extreme, almost defamatory, certainly a distortion of what I said, and quite positively stupid. As the honourable member for Hindmarsh knows very well, the word 'productivity' is a dirty word in the community. One reason for this is that it is related by the union movement to time and motion studies and sweated labour. The editorial and Mr Singleton call for people to work harder. I have been calling for people to work more effectively. There are 2 ways in which that can be done. It can be done by management initiating any one of dozens of schemes available to it and by employees responding to those management initiatives. My comments have been aimed at suggesting ways in which management can improve productivity. Let me say in answer to the interjection by the honourable member for Melbourne that I am not retreating from anything I have said and I will say it time and again. To show that it is not in any way union bashing I have been pointing out that the loss to productivity through matters which do not concern the unions- occupational illnesses and the shuffling of endless pieces of paper by clerical operations all around Australia- is far greater than the loss to productivity stemming from industrial disputation. In saying that, I am not satisfied with the level of industrial disputation but certainly I will go on pointing out to management and to labour the ways in which they can work together, in their mutual self interest, more effectively and with less frustration to improve productivity. 179 Questions 179 179 JPG Phillip 0 0 BIRNEY, Reginald Mr BIRNEY - My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. I refer to the Minister's statement of 20 January 1977 that a sailor had been charged with offences in relation to the fire at the naval air station at Nowra. Can the Minister inform the House whether the sailor will be tried by a naval court martial or under the Crimes Act and when is it intended that this will take place? If the trial is to be by court martial, how do the penalties for these offences vary from penalties for similar offences prescribed under the Crimes Act? 179 4U4 Moreton LP Minister for Defence 1 0 KILLEN, James Mr KILLEN - A sailor has been charged with an offence under the Naval Discipline Act. The trial will be by way of court martial. I do not know precisely when the court martial will be assembled. I have in mind the middle of next month. The honourable gentleman will understand that the case must be prepared and of course ample opportunity must be afforded to the sailor's counsel for the preparation of his defence. I ask my honourable friend and the House to excuse me from making the slightest reference to penalty for reasons which I am quite sure will be amply understood by the House. 179 Questions 179 179 6U4 Werriwa ALP 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr E G Whitlam - I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question which arises from his announcement on 1 9 January of a standing interdepartmental committee on relations with ASEAN. I ask him: Has Malaysia's protest on Australia's tariff quota policy been referred to the committee? Has the committee considered protests on tariff policy from the Philippines? Has the committee made any progress in revising the Government's proposal to establish an ASEAN-Australia trade committee, which was rejected by the ASEAN countries last July? Finally, have any of these matters been submitted to the Economic Committee of Cabinet and is he himself yet a member of that Committee? 179 MI4 Kooyong LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 PEACOCK, Andrew Mr PEACOCK - I am pleased to receive what is to the best of my knowledge the first question from the Leader of the Opposition that indicates that he comprehends the interrelationship of economics with foreign policy. He has shown no understanding of the former so far as domestic policy is concerned and he has shown no understanding of it in regard to the latter. So far as the complaint by the Malaysian Government is concerned, I am not aware whether the Standing Interdepartmental Committee has yet received the cable. I was aware of it today. The IDC met some weeks ago and it is quite clear from the composition of that Committee that it will be meeting for some considerable time. We were determined to establish this Committee after a review of our relations with ASEAN. We recognised that whilst there was a limit- a very severe limitation- to what we could do at the present time in regard to the co-ordination of economic policies it was certainly the time to plan now, and accordingly we formed the IDC. That Committee has met on a number of occasions. I have not yet asked for any reports from it because I want comprehensive discussions and a comprehensive report from it. Its deliberations are going on. In regard to the ASEAN-Australia trade committee to which the honourable member refers, that of course was a suggestion made by his Government and turned down during the period of our Government. It was not an initiative we took. It was not an initiative that was turned back in our faces because we in fact planned something far more comprehensive. One element of the IDC's examination will be that form of trading relationship. The House will recall that the IDC comprises mainly economic departments although my Department is in fact sharing it. In regard to the Economic Committee of Cabinet, I am not a member of it, as indeed many members are not members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is open to me to attend meetings of the Economic Committee at any time I determine. It is also open to the Cabinet to consider anything that comes before the Economic Committee. So in regard not only to ASEAN itself but also to the functioning of the Cabinet system it might well repay the Leader of the Opposition, in the dying days of his occupancy of that position, to examine the way in which Cabinets operate. 180 Questions 180 180 KKT Calare 0 0 MACKENZIE, Alexander Mr MacKENZIE -I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of some current speculation that the Government is considering reducing the floor price level for wool following recent currency changes, can the Minister say whether any decision has been made on this matter? Can the Minister also report any progress on the introduction of the proposed limited offer to purchase scheme to be operated by the Australian Wool Corporation? 180 5E4 NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES NCP/NP Minister for Primary Industry 0 0 SINCLAIR, Ian Mr SINCLAIR -It is true that wool prices have been a little uncertain in the last few weeks. There was some recovery last week and I am hoping that that recovery will be maintained through this week. It has been said that some of the uncertainty revolved around the question whether or not there would be some adjustment downwards in the minimum price reserve scheme operated by the Australian Wool Corporation as a result of the appreciation of the Australian dollar since the devaluation of \1Vi per cent last November. The Government took a decision this morning that the price of 284 cents a kilogram clean whole clip average would be maintained for the balance of this wool selling season and at no less than that level for the 1977-78 wool selling season. This will mean that there will be a strong minimum floor price. The actual operating reserve on which the Corporation functions is, of course, set on a daily basis. It is a flexible reserve and is adjusted to take into account not only currency movements but also other matters affecting supply and demand for wool and types of wool. The flexible reserve is set daily by the Australian Wool Corporation on a commercial basis and, of course, has already been adjusted with each subsequent appreciation of the Australian dollar. With respect to the second part of the honourable gentleman's question, I have now had discussions with each of the principal sectors of the wool industry about the introduction of a limited offer to purchase proposal. This scheme, submitted by the Australian Wool Corporation, would involve the taking in of about 150 000 bales of wool. The proposition still has some details to be spelt out as a result of discussions which have been undertaken. I will be putting the scheme to the Government and I hope that an announcement might be made fairly shortly as to whether it can commence as from 1 July. 180 Questions 180 180 JF7 0 0 BEAZLEY, Kim Mr BEAZLEY - I ask the Minister for Health: Is the ophthalmological expedition headed by Professor Hollows, which was launched some years ago in the Northern Territory, extending its activities into the States? Has it made a significant contribution to major improvement of eyesight and cure of eye diseases of Aboriginals and other people in rural and backblock areas? Is the expedition receiving the co-operation of the Western Australian Government? Has an approach been made to Queensland to serve in that State? If so, with what result? Is the action in the Northern Territory complete? 180 GH4 Gwydir NCP/NP Minister for Health 0 0 HUNT, Ralph Mr HUNT - The national trachoma campaign is progressing very satisfactorily. The House will be pleased to know that Professor Fred Hollows, in association with the State Branch of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists in Western Australia and also with the State health authorities in Western Australia, is undertaking a screening program in the Kalgoorlie area and in the eastern goldfields area of Western Australia. There have been continuing discussions between officers of my Department and officers of the Western Australian Government to ensure that the State of Western Australia is ultimately covered by this screening program. I am not sure what progress has been made in respect of the Queensland Government but I will make inquiries this afternoon to see whether progress is being made to ensure that the national trachoma program gets under way in that State. In the Northern Territory and South Australia approximately 16 000 people have been screened. The total screening has not yet been completed in the Northern Territory but it is proposed to continue the screening program in the northern part of the Northern Territory as soon as time permits. Field hospital units and other mobile facilities of the Department of Defence have also provided excellent co-operation. Unfortunately, those facilities will not now be immediately available to the Department because of Army exercises taking place. It is anticipated that they could be available after May. Discussions will take place between officers of my Department and the Department of Defence to see whether there can be continued cooperation by the Department of Defence in the national trachoma and eye health program which has been of tremendous value and benefit to Aborigines and others living in the remote areas of Australia. 181 Questions 181 181 JTS Lilley LP 0 0 CAIRNS, Kevin Mr Kevin Cairns -I direct my question to the Prime Minister. When, in the next few weeks, the Government transmits guidelines to the Schools Commission for this year, will the Prime Minister firstly ensure that those guidelines in relation to non-government schools specifically ensure that the 'maintenance of effort' principle be deleted from the financial recommendations of the Commission, as they have been from the Commonwealth Grants Commission, and secondly, request that the Commission supports specifically, through its financial recommendations, freedom of choice for students attending non-government schools, having precise regard to many of the lower category schools? 181 QS4 LP 1 0 FRASER, Malcolm Mr MALCOLM FRASER -When the Government is considering these particular matters the views that the honourable gentleman has expressed will obviously be taken into account. 181 Questions 181 181 ZJ4 Gellibrand 0 0 WILLIS, Ralph Mr WILLIS - My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, concerns a statement made by the Attorney-General last Thursday in which he expressed the view that the Government had the power to regulate wages through the use of the corporations power in the Constitution and its power to regulate the wages of Federal Government employees. I ask the Prime Minister: In view of his Attorney-General's statement, will he now inform the House whether it is the intention of his Government to utilise such assumed powers to control wages if the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission rejects the Commonwealth's submission in the current national wage case? Will he also say whether there are any other circumstances in which the Government will consider legislating to control wages? 181 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER -Order! The question is hypothetically based. I will leave it to the Prime Minister to decide whether or not he responds to it. 181 QS4 LP 1 0 FRASER, Malcolm Mr MALCOLM FRASER - I understand that my colleague the Attorney-General was delivering a lecture on the powers of the Constitution and on constitutional reform. As a mere layman I would not want to add anything to what he had to say. 181 Questions 181 181 3F4 Wilmot 0 0 BURR, Max Mr BURR -Has the attention of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs been drawn to recent advertisements in Sydney newspapers advising Sydney motorists that they are paying more for petrol than they would need to pay under a national pricing arrangement? Was a national pricing arrangement recommended by the Royal Commission on Petroleum? Does the Government intend to act on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Petroleum? If so, when? 181 ZD4 Bennelong LP 0 0 HOWARD, John Mr HOWARD - My attention has been drawn to those advertisements. They constitute part of a public debate which is going on regarding the recommendations contained in the fourth report of the Royal Commission. Those recommendations were the subject of detailed consultation between myself and representatives of dealer organisations, all the major oil companies and representatives of ACTU-Solo Enterprises Pty Ltd. I expect to be making certain recommendations to Cabinet very shortly. Any government decision, I expect, will be announced in the near future. 181 Questions 181 181 KN9 Banks 0 0 MARTIN, Vincent Mr MARTIN - The Minister for Post and Telecommunications and Minister Assisting the Treasurer will recall that on Sunday last he claimed again that official Commonwealth Employment Service statistics are an inflated measure of present unemployment and that the Australian Bureau of Statistics' surveys are a much more reliable index of the number of unemployed. Is the Minister aware that a survey of persons looking for work released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on 2 March 1977- only 13 days ago- found that of the 244 000 persons actually unemployed in May 1976 only 171 000 were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service for employment? Does the Minister now accept that the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey, which is his preferred index, concludes that official Commonwealth Employment Service statistics grossly underestimate unemployment, which is contrary to the Minister's expressed view, or is he only interested in attacking - 181 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER -Order! The honourable member is now arguing the case. He has asked his question. I call the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. 181 KZL McPherson LP 0 0 ROBINSON, Eric Mr Eric Robinson -I have made 2 speeches concerning this matter, one to the Proprietary Sugar Millers' Association Pty Ltd in Brisbane, I think a couple of weeks ago, and one yesterday to the permanent building societies here in Canberra. What I have said is that an inquiry is now going on into the Commonwealth Employment Service. I have said that whilst obviously some people who wish to work do not voluntarily register, on the other hand there are many indicators to demonstrate that some people who register with the Commonwealth Employment Service either have registered improperly or have found jobs. Indeed, the number of people registered is not an accurate assessment of those people who are actively looking for employment. This goes back to September 1974, if 1 remember correctly, when the then Minister for Labor made some suggestion that indeed there was need to have a closer look to see whether unemployment figures accurately reflected those who genuinely were in need of employment opportunities. The Government has said time and time again, and if the honourable member bothers to read both the speeches that I made- I will send him a copy so that he will be better informed- he will see that I go on to - Opposition members interjecting- 182 KZL LP 0 0 ROBINSON, Eric Mr Eric Robinson -If honourable members listen they will hear the complete answer. I express concern, as all Government members express concern, about the lack of employment opportunities. But equally, this is a responsible Government and we are going to see that accurate figures are made available because just to use unemployment figures as a sole economic indicator is to be utterly irresponsible and is a completely wrong approach to looking at the general economy. What has to be appreciated is that the improvement in the employment opportunities is at the end of a recovery process and that recovery process is now under way. There are plenty of indicators to demonstrate this. 182 Questions 182 182 K5A Paterson 0 0 O'KEEFE, Frank Mr O'KEEFE - I ask the Minister for Health: Did a serious shortage of anti-flu vaccine occur last winter and cause considerable concern to health authorities? Can the Minister state what the position is at the present time with regard to the supply of this vaccine and will he see that adequate supplies are made available by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories this winter? 182 GH4 NCP/NP 0 0 HUNT, Ralph Mr HUNT - I well recall the problems that we encountered last year in the distribution of vaccines for influenza mainly as a result of the late detection of the flu against which the vaccines were produced. It takes about 10 weeks for a batch of vaccine to be produced. It was not until late in the season that the World Health Organisation and other responsible bodies were able to identify the strain that would occur in this country- A Victoria strain. Since then I have arranged for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, in association with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the wholesale distributing authorities and other people responsible for the distribution of vaccines to meet. They have met on 2 occasions to ensure that there will be no holdups in the distribution of vaccines should there be an outbreak in Australia in the coming months. We presently have dispensed 1.2 million doses of A Victoria and A New Jersey vaccines. We also have one million doses of vaccine for those people who may encounter A Victoria strains and 3 million doses of A New Jersey strain. However, I should like to assure the House and indeed the public that we do not expect any difficulties in the distribution of vaccine on this occasion. We believe that we have adequate supplies. I hope that the media and other people generally do not panic people as they did last year. There are no indications that there will be an outbreak of swine influenza in Australia in the coming season. 182 Questions 182 182 KZY Grayndler ALP 0 0 WHITLAM, Tony Mr Antony Whitlam -My question, which is directed to the Treasurer, relates to one of the indicators of economic activity other than employment statistics about which his assistant just spoke. Is it a fact that the production statistics for January, recently released, show that seasonally adjusted falls in production outnumber rises by almost three to one? Is it also a fact that over the 12 months to January, more production indexes have fallen than have risen? Does this not indicate that for increases in production as for many other reasons, a drastic change in policy is needed? 182 KIM Flinders LP Treasurer 1 0 LYNCH, Phillip Mr LYNCH -The figures certainly do not reflect any suggestion whatever that any change is required to the Government's economic policy at present. The figures on the industrial production side show that in the month of January production of 8 of the 30 items for which seasonally adjusted statistics are available rose. This compares with 19 of 32 increases in December and 18 of 32 increases in November. In the 3 months to January production of 14 of the 30 items available increased on a seasonally adjusted basis compared with the previous quarter and 23 and 19 rises- that is to say of 32- were recorded in the December quarter and the 3 months to November respectively. Of the 14 items that increased in the 3 months to January two rose by more than 10 per cent. Increases occurred in most basic materials and consumer durable items. I am informed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which is the body that produced the figures, that particular problems are associated with the seasonal adjustment of the January figures. I take the Bureau 's word and I report it to thus Parliament without comment. The Bureau apparently made the comment in the January document that the increase in annual leave entitlements from 3 weeks to 4 weeks in 1975 has not as yet been fully incorporated into the seasonal factors. This would account for some of what appears to have been an apparent slackening in production in January. I say to the honourable gentleman, consistent with the advice proffered to this House during question time today by the Minister assisting me, that overall there is no doubt that recovery has taken place; there is no doubt that recovery is taking place. Honourable gentlemen who seek to fasten on this month's indicator or that month's figures do a disservice to the total picture and indeed contribute to the process of seeking to talk the Australian economy down. 183 HI4 0 0 MORRIS, Peter Mr Morris - I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under standing order 32 1, 1 require the Treasurer to table for the information of the House each of the 2 documents from which he was quoting. 183 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - Was the honourable gentlemen quoting from documents? 183 KIM 0 0 LYNCH, Phillip Mr LYNCH - I was. 183 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER -Were the documents confidential? 183 KIM 0 0 LYNCH, Phillip Mr LYNCH - They were confidential departmental documents. 183 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - I shall not call for the documents to be tabled. 183 Questions 183 183 CG4 Farrer 0 0 FIFE, Wal Mr FIFE - My question, which is directed to the Minister for Transport, concerns the unbelievable decision of the New South Wales Government to abandon Sydney's planned freeway system and dispose of valuable corridors of land which have been slowly acquired over many years. I ask the Minister: Was some of this land purchased with funds provided by the Commonwealth Government? If so, has the New South Wales Government consulted the Commonwealth in relation to its decision? Does the Minister agree that these corridors are invaluable and should be retained to provide Sydney with extensive road options for the future? Can the Minister take any action to prevent the New South Wales Labor Government from dealing this disastrous blow at the Sydney road system in a similar way as the previous New South Wales Labor government hacked up public transport in Sydney when it - 183 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER -Order! The honourable gentleman is now arguing the matter. I ask him to resume his seat. The question has been posed to the Minister for Transport. 183 009OD Gippsland LP Minister for Transport 1 0 NIXON, Peter Mr NIXON -The honourable member for Farrer would probably be as well informed in this matter as any other honourable member of the House because, as the House knows, he is a former Minister for Transport in New South Wales and would have been closely associated with plans to overcome Sydney's transport problems. I agree with the honourable member that it is a curious decision, to say the least, that has been taken by the New South Wales Government. For example, it was proposed that one of the freeways would connect Kingsford-Smith aerodrome and Botany Bay with the southeastern regions of Sydney. That was only one proposed freeway. The freeways were described to me by the State Minister for Transport as being merely lines on the map. Whilst I have not yet had it confirmed, I understand that those lines on the map have cost some $20m in resumption fees to this point in time. I shall be curious to see what final cost is involved in the acquisitions that have taken place for the freeways that will now not progress. It is a curious decision in another sense because at the last Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting the New South Wales Minister took me to task for the Commonwealth adopting the view that we ought not be putting in something like 85 per cent of money for urban arterial roads in Sydney as we were doing previously but ought to reduce our share to something like 50 per cent. In fact the Commonwealth put in $36.6m last year for the purposes of construction of urban arterial roads in Sydney and the New South Wales government put in only $6m. Yet I was taken to task because our contribution of $36.6m will be reduced to $28. 7m in this ensuing year. We held the view that because the State was so uncertain as to its plans the least it could do was put up 50 per cent of the money for urban arterial road construction. There is no doubt that the long term planning of Sydney may now be in some jeopardy or under some question. I have not yet had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the State Minister. As to the details in respect of the funds, certainly Commonwealth funds have been used but at this time I have had no word from the State Minister as to what he proposes in respect of that money when the land is sold off. I find the whole situation regarding the planning of Sydney and the money involved totally unsatisfactory. Certainly the motorists of Sydney ought to look more carefully at the proposals laid down by Mr Cox. 184 miscellaneous 184 5E4 New England NCP/NP Minister for Primary Industry 0 0 SINCLAIR, Ian Mr SINCLAIR - Pursuant to clause 1 1 of the Sugar Agreement 1975 I present the annual report of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee for the year ended 30 June 1 976. 184 miscellaneous 184 KZL McPherson LP 0 0 ROBINSON, Eric Mr Eric Robinson - Mr Speaker,with the indulgence of the House I wish to add something to the answer I gave to the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin). I said that I had made 2 speeches on the matter. In fact I have made three. One was to the insurance brokers. I shall send the honourable member a copy of that and he will be even better informed. 184 miscellaneous 184 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - I have received a message from the Senate concurring in the resolution of the House relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory and agreeing that the resolution have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. I wish to inform the House of the following nominations of senators and members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory. Senator Bonner, Chaney and Kilgariff have been nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Senators Coleman, Robertson and Cavanagh have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in that House. Mr Calder, Mr Drummond, Mr McLean, Mr Ruddock and Mr Wentworth have been nominated by the Prime Minister and Mr Beazley, Mr Bryant and Mr L. R. Johnson have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. 184 miscellaneous 184 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - I wish to inform the House of the following nominations of members to be members of the Select Committee on Tourism. Mr Bonnett, Mr Jull, Mr I.L. Robinson, Mr Sainsbury and Mr Short have been nominated by the Prime Minister and Mr Cohen, Mr Stewart and Mr Young have been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. 184 miscellaneous 184 miscellaneous 184 184 009MM Wakefield 0 0 KELLY, Bert Mr KELLY -In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 1 present the report relating to the following proposed work: Law Courts Building at Alice Springs, Northern Territory. Ordered that the report be printed. 184 miscellaneous 184 184 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER - I have received a letter from the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: Fraser Government Ministers' misleading statements on the economy. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- 184 AV4 Adelaide 0 0 HURFORD, Chris Mr HURFORD -The way in which the Australian people are being misled about our economy, not just by one Fraser Government Minister but by a number of them, is totally disgraceful. The chickens are coming home to roost. The Government can fool people some of the time, but it certainly cannot fool them all the time. We had more examples of these misleading statements at question time today. Lies are giving way to more lies and these are being detected now by an increasing number of Australian people. 184 10000 0 0 SPEAKER, Mr Mr SPEAKER -Order! I require the honourable gentleman not to use the word 'lies' in relation to a group of Ministers. 184 AV4 0 0 HURFORD, Chris Mr HURFORD - I withdraw that word. Misleading statements are giving way to more misleading statements. As I have said, more Australian people are beginning to recognise this. It is our job in Opposition to draw attention to the misleading statements. This is not talking down the economy, as we are accused sometimes stupidly of doing. We were accused of it again today by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) at question time. It is my duty, indeed our duty in Opposition, simply to attempt to make an accurate assessment of the state of economic activity so that appropriate economic policies are chosen, not just by us in Opposition but by the Government right now for the better welfare of the Australian people. These disgraceful, misleading statements have not been on just one economic subject. They have been on a number of subjects. I would like to list the subjects. 'Unemployment is a myth' is one that we heard again at question time today. 'The underlying rate of inflation is falling'. 'We can get economic recovery only if we have a fall in real wages and salaries'. 'The Liberal and National Country Party members are good economic managers'. I could increase the list beyond that, but those are all that I shall have time to deal with in this urgency debate today. We all remember the classic that unemployment is largely a myth. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson), actually said: 'The unemployment figures are largely a myth'. That is not all that has been said by Fraser Government Ministers along the same lines. Treasurer Lynch said as recently as last Friday: 'Unemployment figures were never among the leading indicators of economic recovery '. I would like to examine in detail the unemployment situation. The most accurate figures on unemployment are those collected in the census. These are not available for 1976 due to the Fraser Government's decision to defer processing of census data. The next most reliable estimates of unemployment are the results of the sample survey of the labour force made quarterly by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. These figures show that in November there were 255 000 unemployed persons. A comparable Commonwealth Employment Service figure shows that 273 000 persons were registered as unemployed in that month. This small difference is due to the fact that the labour force survey is conducted over the whole of the month, whereas the unemployment figures from the Commonwealth Employment Service relate to the last day of the month. This would mean that in the period when unemployment was increasing, as it was in November, the Commonwealth Employment Service figures related to a date when employment was likely to be higher than the average for the whole month. Comparison of the 2 sources for February suggests that exactly the same case is applying for that month also- namely, the survey shows that 310 000 persons were unemployed in February 1976, whereas only 304 000 were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service. There is absolutely no foundation for the assertion by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer that unemployment is largely a myth. The claim by the Minister is in the most cynical traditions of propaganda and it misleads the Australian people. The claim is not only dishonest but also it neglects the people who have withdrawn from the work force because of increasing unemployment. This can be seen by comparing the work force participation rates in November 1975 and November 1976-62.1 per cent in one case and 6 1 per cent in the other. If the labour force participation rate in 1976 had been the same as in 1975 there would have been an additional 107 000 members of the labour force in November last year. In fact there were only 10 000 more. This means that approximately 100 000 people withdrew from the work force or did not enter it who would normally have been expected to be either in employment or looking for jobs. To get an accurate impression of the extent of unemployment and the economic and social cost of the current level of unemployment, these 100 000 should be added to the current 347 000, making a total of 447 000 persons without jobs whom we must plan to see employed. That is a totally different impression from the one given by this Minister. In other words, many thousands more are unemployed now than is the case displayed by the figures. Perhaps the most depressing aspect of these unemployment facts which are being brushed off by the Treasurer as not being a leading indicator of" our economic state of affairs- he brushed them off as such- is that he is so complacent about what is going on and is not in the least concerned about the fact that we have such unemployment in our midst. The Ministers and the sycophants who sit behind them feel as if they need do nothing about this situation. They have little or no contact with the people in need in this country. They represent the haves, not the have nots. They now do not even pretend that they are aiming at full employment. I repeat the Treasurer's statement. 'Unemployment is not a leading indicator', he said. What rubbish that is. It is a leading indicator that thousands who want to be in work are out of work. It is a leading indicator that we are not creating the jobs to put these people into a worthwhile occupation. It is a leading indicator that our economy has to gear up to an enormously greater extent to put these people back into the work force. It is the leading indicator of misery, of what we must set out to cure. The stupid phrase should haunt the Treasurer for the rest of his political career. I will do what I can to see that it does just that. Unemployment is the leading indicator of what we in the Australian Labor Party are all about- concern for people, their lives, their standard of living, their welfare. All our policies are designed to achieve full employment and fairer shares of the production which results from that full employment. This is in marked contrast to the documented attitudes of our political opponents, as displayed by the statement that unemployment is not a leading indicator. The complacency has to be heard to be believed. Another myth being propagated by Government leaders is that the rate of inflation is falling. Let us examine these misleading statements. The Treasurer, in his Press release on 22 February 1977, said: The CPI for the December quarter . . . consolidated the marked downward trend in inflation during 1976. His assisting Minister said on 14 March, yesterday, in that speech he publicised at question time: A considerable winding down in the underlying rate of inflation was achieved in 1976. By sophisticated- I mean that word in its literal sense- juggling with figures they attempt to show that the underlying rate of inflation is falling. That, too, is absolute rubbish. I would love to believe that it was so, for the current rate of increase in the consumer price index, of 14.4 per cent per year, is desperately serious for all of us. It has distorting effects on the economy and causes acute social and economic problems for many vulnerable groups in our community. The analysis by the Treasurer and his assistant are totally false. The misleading claim that the underlying rate of inflation has fallen relies on estimates of the consumer price index for 6-monthly periods calculated at annual rates. These show that in the second half of 1975 the CPI rose by 14.3 per cent, when all government taxes, charges and Medibank effects are excluded, and by 10.2 per cent in the second half of 1976. 1 would like to believe that this really did show a declining rate of inflation, but there are 2 major intellectual objections to believing just that. One is about the use of 6-monthly averages recalculated at annual rates. This procedure exaggerates the importance of chance events in the 6-monthly period covered. We normally use annual figures because this reduces the importance of chance, random or haphazard events. My second objection is much more important. This is that the effects of devaluation will obliterate any anti-inflationary advantage which might have been accruing from the contractionary policies inflicted on our country by the LiberalNational Country Party Government in 1976. One of the principal advantages the Fraser Government had in 1 976 in its fight against inflation was that import prices were growing more slowly than Australia's domestic prices and, therefore, imports were tending to slow up the rate of growth of Australia's price level. But all that has finished. The 17.5 per cent devaluation decision was estimated by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research to add about 2.5 per cent to the CPI in the first 2 quarters of 1977. Subsequent revaluations have eliminated about a third of the effect. So devaluation puts to an end the underlying reduction in the rate of inflation which may have been brought about by reducing import prices. A third area in this case in which the Prime Minister and his Treasurer are mythologising and spreading misleading statements is in the area of wages policy. In this case they are doing it through over-simplification. They argue that a necessary condition for the reduction in the rate of inflation is a fall in real wages. No one would disagree that if real wages did fall this would exert downward pressure on prices. The question is: Is this the most effective and equitable policy available to the Government? The answer is no. It is my opinion that other approaches are available which are likely to be more effective in the long run. These are tied up with the whole Labor alternative economic strategy which I and others have outlined previously. The most important point in this context is that real wage rates and earnings have fallen slightly during the last 2 years during a period when productivity has been slowly increasing. Real average weekly earnings per employed male rose by 26 per cent between the December quarters of 1974 and 1976. Average wage rates for adult males increased by 28 per cent during the same period while prices rose by 29.4 per cent. The Flinders Institute of Labour Studies estimates that productivity rose by about 4 per cent over the 2 years to mid- 1976. Continuation of this trend will gradually return unit costs of output to pre- 1973-74 levels. So we do not need to decrease the standard of living of wage and salary earners in order to bring about this recovery. Wage indexation, together with tax indexation, provides an orderly method of wage setting and a means of reducing industrial conflict resulting from the insecurity caused by inflation. The important point to remember is that wage indexation simply maintains the real value of wages; it does not involve any increase in wages. The Prime Minister and his Treasurer frequently have attacked employees and union leaders for wanting to maintain their real incomes. In effect the Government is arguing that wage and salary earners should pay the full cost for a reduction in the rate of inflation leaving all other incomes untouched. The debate is thus in large measure about the distribution of income rather than inflation. It is totally misleading to say that it is only wage and salary earners who must reduce their standards of living, or that they have to do so in order to get us out of our present economic troubles. This leads me to the final myth which the time available to me will allow me to put forward. It is the myth that Liberal and National Country Party governments are good economic managers. The Fraser Government has now been in office for 16 months. It was able to justify blocking Supply for the second time in 3 years on the ground that there was an economic crisis which only it could resolve. The Government began disastrously with the over-simplified aim of giving pre-eminence to reducing the rate of inflation. It has continued in the same disastrous form. Even if we accepted that its aim was correctto aim only for a reduction in inflation- we then have to list the policy decisions which it has taken which have increased the rate of inflation. I refer to the termination of the quarterly company tax payments; I refer to the Medibank muddle which alone added 3.2 per cent to the December quarter CPI; I refer to the way in which the States have had to increase their charges; I refer most of all to devaluation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!The honourable member's time has expired. 187 KIM Flinders LP Treasurer 1 0 LYNCH, Phillip Mr LYNCH - This Government rejects unreservedly the terms of the matter of public importance put before the House today on behalf of the Opposition, ironically by the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), the shadow Treasurer, who has himself said of his own Labor Party policy: The danger in Labor's approach is the possibility of intensified pressure of demand leading to further prolonging of inflation. 187 AV4 0 0 HURFORD, Chris Mr Hurford - Read the whole lot. You are misleading again. 187 KIM 0 0 LYNCH, Phillip Mr LYNCH - The honourable gentleman is becoming rather testy. One would imagine that he was also involved in an event on the other side of the House which is not irrelevant presumably to any member of the Opposition. This Government, unlike its predecessor, has on a number of occasions given detailed explanations of the state of the Australian economy and of the policies which the Government has been pursuing. Far from attempting to mislead, the Government has sought to inject a sense of realism into the economic debate. It is ironic indeed that the Opposition should claim that the Government has sought to mislead the Australian people on the state of the economy. Right up to the time of the 1975 election the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) and the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who now seeks to assume that role, were telling the Australian people that the economy was in good shape and that the Budget was working according to plan. All those assurances were found to be absolutely false when official information was made available to the present Administration. For example, the Hayden Budget was brought down with an estimated deficit for 1975-76 of $2.8 billion. This Government was officially advised in January, shortly after assuming office, that the Hayden deficit would amount to at least $4.7 billion in the absence of fiscal restraint. In his Budget Speech of 1975 the then Treasurer told the House that real gross domestic product was expected to increase by about 5 per cent in 1975-76. The fact is, of course, that real gross domestic product increased by only 1.6 per cent during that year and would have been negative but for the rise that took place during the last half of the financial year under the policies of the present Government. The honourable member for Oxley said in his Budget Speech that liquidity would grow without being fully accommodating to inflation. The fact is that at the end of 1 975 when the present Government took office the broadly defined money supply was growing at annual rates of around 20 per cent- hardly consistent with the Budget promise. Many other parameters of the Hayden Budget were simply not attainable or had been pushed far out of line in the space of several months. Yet these facts were suppressed by our predecessors. I turn now to the assertions made by the honourable member for Adelaide in this debate and on previous occasions outside the House, that the Government is in some way coming forward with misleading statements on the economy. The honourable gentleman has sought to distort what is the real rate of inflation at the present time. I reiterate once again that substantial progress was made during 1976 in bringing down the rate of inflation and, on any test, the underlying rate of inflation was lower at the end of 1976 than at the end of the previous year. Adjusted for Government charges and taxes and the effects of Medibank, the consumer price index rose at an annual rate of 10.2 per cent in the last half of 1976, compared with the rise of 14.3 per cent in the last half of 1975. But as I have said before, on any accepted basis for comparison, the December quarter alone, the 12 months to the end of December or the 6 months to the end of December the underlying rate of inflation expressed as an annual rate was significantly less at the end of last year than it was 12 months before. These are the facts, and they cannot be whitewashed by the honourable gentlemen in this House. It is true of course, as the honourable gentleman observed, that the devaluation of November of last year will have some impact on the rate of price increases, even though stringent off-setting action has been taken. No Minister of this Government has sought to obscure that fact. On a number of occasions I have specifically stated that there will be some price increases in the March and June quarters that were not foreseen at the time of the last Federal Budget. At all times the Government has been quite frank about its record in combating inflation and about its expectations as to the future rate of inflation. I turn now to the question of unemployment. Unemployment is too high. The Government has said that on a number of occasions, and I reaffirm it here. I remind the House first of all that the Budget papers last year indicated little if any improvement in the employment situation during 1976 but stated that some improvement could be expected in line with strengthening economic activity further into 1977. The figures for January and February were in no way inconsistent with what was put before this House in the Budget of last year. Unemployment today is only a fraction of 1 per cent higher than it was at the beginning of last year. I remind the House that unemployment was only 2.4 per cent of the work force when the former Administration came to office. What the present Government has sought to do, and sought to do quite properly, is to place the level of unemployment in context. There is, and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Eric Robinson) has drawn attention to it, a discrepancy between the figures prepared by the Commonwealth Employment Service and those published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We also know from the last special survey conducted by the Bureau that there are doubts as to the real meaning of the figures prepared and presented by the Commonwealth Employment Service. For example, just over one-third of the respondents to the survey were not unemployed according to the internationally agreed definition used by the Bureau. More than 25 per cent were employed full or part time or had lost or found a job in the week of the survey. Members of this Administration know full well that whenever one prepares and delivers an address on the economy to any business audience throughout this country there are constant clamours that staff cannot be found for jobs that are available in factories throughout the land. I turn to the estimate for growth given in last year's Budget which the honourable gentleman has queried on more than one occasion. As the House will recall, I said in bringing down that Budget that real growth in the non-farm sector of the economy was expected to be at a rate of around 4 per cent in the financial year. Unlike what happened under the Hayden Budget that fell well short of expectations, the indications are already that the growth rate set down in the present Government's Budget will be exceeded. Another furphy that has been peddled consistently by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) and by the honourable member for Adelaide is that living standards are falling as a result of Government policies. I made it clear to the House last week during question time that this was not the case and I do so again for the benefit of the Opposition. I note that the honourable member for Adelaide has claimed that the whole of the increase in real household disposable income in the year to the September quarter 1976 occurred during the December quarter of 1975 and that as a result real household disposable income has been falling during 1976. In so doing the honourable member for Adelaide has resorted to the dubious practice of quoting seasonally unadjusted figures without qualification. Household disposable income as measured in the national accounts, as the honourable gentleman should well know, is subject to considerable seasonality, and movement from one quarter to the next is not indicative of underlying trend. Proper interpretation of underlying trend can only be made after a series has been seasonally adjusted. On that basis, quite contrary to what the honourable gentleman has continued to assert without foundation, real disposable income actually fell in the December quarter of 1975, for which he and his colleagues must accept responsibility. In other words the Hayden Budget caused living standards to fall during the December quarter of 1 97 5 . 189 AV4 0 0 HURFORD, Chris Mr Hurford - You held up the Hayden Budget. 189 KIM 0 0 LYNCH, Phillip Mr LYNCH - The honourable gentleman can chew nervously on his finger. The fact that disposable incomes rose in real terms during the September quarter of 1976 reflects of course the effects of personal tax indexation and the new system of family allowances. Rather than raising matters of public importance such as the one before the Parliament today, the Opposition would be better occupied in making some semblance of sense of its own economic policies. No one can seriously suggest that a scrappy, incomplete 2-page Press release, omitting as it does reference entirely to both wages and external policy, can be put before the people of this country as an alternative economic program. This is all the more so when the Opposition's spokesman, the honourable member for Adelaide, has referred to that policy in terms which I again quote because the point needs to be stressed continually in this House. In describing his own policy he said: The danger in Labor's approach is the possibility of intensified pressure of demand leading to further prolonging of inflation. The kinds of policies which the honourable member and his colleagues continue to advocate are best summed up by the British Prime Minister in his address to the Labour Party conference last year when he said: We used to think that you could just spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and by boosting Government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists and insofar as it ever did exist, it worked by injecting inflation into the economy. This House, quite frankly, is entitled to know why the Opposition is not prepared to come forward, for example, with a wages policy. After all, the present Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying that excessive wage increases have been the cause of both inflation and unemployment in Australia. He has said: The other thing that I wanted to say in this connection is the cause of unemployment now. And it is, frankly, the excessive wage increases. That is what has been said by the man who is currently Leader of the Australian Labor Party in this House. I quote again from the same speech: The principal contributor in inflation now is the wage claims. Against that background it is somewhat strange that the Opposition is not prepared to come forward with a wages policy and has in fact put this very significant aspect of economic pOliCy into the 'too hard' basket. The honourable member for Adelaide, though, is apparently prepared to concede that there ought not to be a full flow-on of the consumer price index in the present national wage hearing. The Melbourne Age states: The shadow Treasurer, Mr Hurford, said last night that the Arbitration Commission might have some justification in not passing on the full 6 per cent CPI rise. The newspaper goes on to say of the honourable member Mr Hurford's remarks are the first by any Labor politician or union leader to indicate that less than the full 6 per cent flow-on may be acceptable. In other words, the honourable gentleman himself is prepared to outline his wages policy to a journalist- because he has not yet taken the opportunity to deny the accuracy of that report- to indicate in an interview what he is not prepared to put in the Labor Party's official policy. Again, the honourable member is on record recently as putting forward a policy advocating the control of profits as a method of controlling inflation, something that he is not prepared to put in his Party's official policy statement. I remind the honourable gentleman that he specifically called for the control of profits, amongst other things, in his speech to the Victorian Branch of the ALP on 27 February last. No doubt such statements, as were those made by the present Leader of the Opposition, were designed to appeal to the socialist Left in Victoria. The fact remains that they are grossly irresponsible in circumstances where obviously a greater increase in the profit share is required. The Government rejects the Opposition 's matter of public importance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide)-I wish to make a personal explanation. 189 10000 0 0 DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -Does the honourable gentleman claim to have been misrepresented? 189 AV4 0 0 HURFORD, Chris Mr HURFORD -I do, on 2 occasions in particular. I have been misrepresented on many more occasions but I am allowed to explain only two of them. Firstly, the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has once again misrepresented me by reading only one paragraph of a letter to the Canberra Times concerning the Australian Labor Party 's alternative economic strategy. The full letter points out that our strategy is anti-inflationary. The second misrepresentation is that he quoted selectively from an article in the Age about the flow-on from the consumer price index. As that same Age article points out, I referred only to the Medibank component of 3.2 per cent on very high income rates where if the 3.2 per cent were passed on on those high income rates a profit would be made out of the reimbursement for Medibank because the Medibank levy has a cut-off point itself. 190 10000 0 0 DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -Order! The honourable gentleman has made his explanation. He is now debating the matter. Mr LYNCH(Flinders-Treasurer)-Mr Deputy Speaker, I too claim to have been misrepresented. However much the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) might like to parade that particular comment in this House, what I said today and what I repeat now is that, on the basis of his statement in the Melbourne Age the honourable gentleman qualified full wage indexation. It is a statement which he had not made before, which does not appear in a document which he has issued and which again shows the distortions of which the honourable gentleman is capable. 190 JAG Melbourne Ports 0 0 CREAN, Frank Mr CREAN - I want to take up a point made by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). He said that he was trying to put, and he hoped that everybody else would put, the level of unemployment in its proper perspective. I want to add this to that apparently simple statement: One cannot put the level of unemployment in its proper context without putting the level of total employment in its proper context. In June 1974, which was the midst of the term of the last Australian Labor Party Government, civilian employment in Australia reached its highest level ever. It reached a level of 4 795 500, seasonally adjusted. The last figure that is available for civilian employment was published the other day by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It shows that the level at December 1976- 2 Vi years after June 1974-was 4 722 700. In December 1976 there were 70 000 fewer people in total employment than had been the case in June 1 974. No one will tell us that the population of Australia was less in December 1976 than it was in June 1974. I think that it is about time that the question was asked: Why is it so difficult to increase the level of employment in Australia? No longer can honourable members opposite continue to blame it on the 3 years of Labor government. I have tried to suggest and I will quote- not selectively, I hope- something that ought to bring home to honourable members opposite what are the difficulties. I quote from the recent address of the Chairman of ICI Australia Ltd, Mr D. R. Zeidler, who is a friend of mine. He sent me a copy of his address which I received today. He said: Profit after tax available to ICI Australia was $2 1 . 1 m compared with S 1 5.2m in 1 975, an increase of 39 per cent. While this was a significant improvement over the previous year it should be noted that we are not yet quite back to the profit levels achieved in 1973 and 1974 - I will go on to quote the next 2 lines, otherwise somebody will say that I have been selective. Mr Zeidler said: ... a reflection of the slow rate of recovery of the economy from the depressed year of 1 975. I suggest that 1975 was not the only depressed year. In fact 1976 was a depressed year and so far 1977 is far from being a good year. We have heard all sorts of things about real wages and so on. I want to quote this truism: Given that we have a total economy- there can be arguments about how it is shared among its various sectors -until we have a bigger cake not everybody can have more. At the moment the argument seems to be about real wages. I suggest that the Government has become obsessed about real wages in what is really a depressed economy, and it is not giving any attention to increasing the size of the cake. As one Minister said this afternoon in answer to a question, the size of the cake has something to do with productivity. Mr Zeidler underlines that. He goes on further to say: ... in our business, we now see good opportunities ahead for further substantial investment, and our plans for these are well developed. But they are not venturing yet because of the lack of confidence in the community generally. I submit that the Government will not increase confidence in a community if by far the largest participants in the total economy- that is, the wage earners- have some doubt about their share in a larger cake. I submit that the Government ought to be looking at this underlying situation. The Treasurer again quoted the parts of the gross domestic product that suit him best. I draw his attention to a document entitled Australian National Accounts 1975-76, Preliminary Statement No. 3, Gross Domestic Product at Factor Cost by Industry issued at noon on 1 March 1977, not many days ago. What I have said so far is that the Government cannot blame all the ills of the economy at the moment on the 3 years of the Labor Government. The Labor Government went well in its first 2 years- I might claim some modest credit for it- but it went wrong in 1975 because factors were ignored by us and they are certainly continuing to be ignored by this Government. I refer to changes in the economy. We have to go a long way back. I commend this single sheet to honourable members. In fact I ask that one table on it be incorporated in Hansard. This table sets out the comparisons of gross domestic product for the periods 1964-65 and 1974-75. In agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting there was a decline from 10.4 per cent of the total product in the period 1964-65 to 1968-69 on average, to 6.5 per cent in 1974-75. Manufacturing declined from 26.4 per cent to 22.3 per cent of the total product. They are 2 areas of real physical endeavour in which the proportion of the work force or the totality of the economy has declined. Oddly enough, the areas that showed most improvement were finance and business which rose from 8 per cent to 9.5 per cent and a rather curious group called community services, entertainment and personal services, which rose from 10.3 per cent to 14.4 per cent. Perhaps where previously we could not eat ourselves to death we are now laughing ourselves to death. A rather odd one- and it appears in the table as a negative- is the imputed bank service charge which rose from 2.3 per cent to 3. 1 per cent. I suggest that those statistics show significant structural permanent changes in the economy- all of which did not begin in the period 1973-75- which were ignored by the previous coalition Government and are certainly being ignored by the present Government. I hope that this Government and the Opposition get over blackguarding each other and saying that this all happened in the 3 years of Labor administration. It was happening in the last several years prior to 1972. It will continue to happen in the years ahead unless we get trustful cooperation between employer and employees about enlarging the total cake. There will not be co-operation unless the Government acts as an honest broker between the two instead of taking one side against the other. 191 10000 0 0 LUCOCK, Philip Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock -The honourable member asked for leave to have incorporated in Hansard certain material. There being no objection, leave is granted. The table read as follows- 191 K9L Curtin 0 0 GARLAND, Ransley Mr GARLAND -The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has introduced into this House today on behalf of the Labor Party Opposition a matter of public importance which reads: Fraser Government Ministers' misleading statements on the economy. I must say that having listened to the speech by the honourable member I found it very difficult to detect which statements he found to be misleading and in which way they were misleading. So it is very hard to grapple with the subject and, if I might say so with great respect, I think the previous speaker, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean), who spoke in support of the Labor Party's matter for discussion, did not really try to grapple with it either, although some of the things he said were very interesting and if I have time perhaps I might make one or two observations on them. The honourable member for Adelaide did mention very quickly in his introduction that he was going to speak about contradictions on unemployment, inflation and whether the Liberal and Country Parties were regarded as good economic managers. But he really did not make out a clear case. He did, however, put certain views, which we know he holds, on a number of other economic issues. I think it would be best if I were to confine myself to some observations on those views. In these economic debates when the Labor Party is criticising the Government we must start with a consideration of what the Government is doing compared with what Labor did when it was in office. The situation as everyone in this country knows, was transformed between the years 1972 to 1975 when Labor was in office. I remind the House again, as one must to debate this properly, that inflation was running at a rate of 4.7 per cent at the end of 1972 and reached in one quarter during Labor's term of office 17.6 per cent before it diminished a little and unemployment, about which Labor Party supporters have so much to say these days, was 1 39 000 in 1 972 but when Labor left office it was 328 000. Interest rates were the highest ever achieved- if 'achieved' is the right word- in Australia. It is no use trying to use such arguments as that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) is not concerned about unemployment. He did not say anything like that. When the honourable member for Adelaide quoted the Treasurer's exact words the position was quite obvious. The question before the Government and before the House is not one of criticism. The question is how do we reduce unemployment. There seems to be some sort of an assumption in the so called proposals brought forward by the Labor Party. In this House last week the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) said: 'We agree inflation is a bad thing. We are only differing about how it should be overcome. We have put our proposals forward. ' Those proposals really amount to spending a lot more money. There is still this belief that if a government spends money more people will be employed. Surely the recent history of many comparable economies and of our own in 1974 amply illustrates that Government spending of more money creates more unemployment. The conditions we are in are different from those which existed in the 1930s. We have to try to understand that. I do not have all the quick answers to lowering the unemployment rate, but I do say to the House that there is ample evidence that further spending does not reduce unemployment or interest rates or in many cases solve social problems. We have to face that fact. I might say that I believe that in the present conditionsand I say this as tactfully as I can to the whole of the House- spending money at present is not necessarily a way of getting more votes either. The honourable member for Adelaide said that inflation results in acute hardship for underprivileged groups. Quite so. I agreed entirely with that but the question again is: How do we go about reducing inflation? Surely we must all know deep down that the difficulty of the present economic situation which has built up over a number of years is not capable of easy solution. One thing about which I would have thought we were unanimous is that we must first reduce the rate of inflation. That is what we must do before we can get employment up and interest rates down. The honourable member has already been taken to task by the Treasurer about the statement made by the honourable member in a letter to the Canberra Times. I might say with respect that what the honourable member added by way of personal explanation does not in any way reflect on his earlier statement which stands clear, pristine and accurate. I agree with him that if there is to be a lot more Government expenditure there is a risk of an increase in inflation. That is what he said. If he says that the Labor Party is prepared to put up with that and it recognises that an economy may get a higher inflation rate from increased spending, I can only commend him for his honesty but I cannot commend him for the policy he supports. The truth of the matter is that many of his colleagues- if not himselfare big spenders. They still believe that much more money ought to be spent on a whole range of areas and that this will cure our problems or at any rate cure them to some extent. We have heard mention recently of a speech made in 1974 by the Leader of the Opposition Mr E. G. Whitlam in which he pointed out in a flash of honesty that that was not the situation. We have heard quoted once or twice the speech made on 1 October by the British Labour Prime Minister, Mr Callaghan. It is a very good speech. I commend it to honourable members. It is a highly responsible speech pointing out that the problems are not cured in easy ways. May I also refer to one or two other important people who have lent some support to this view. The Reserve Bank board has very clear views on this matter. The Bank's report was tabled not so very long ago. The Board indicates support for a policy of restraint. It rejects the notion- I was reminded of this today by the honourable member for Perth (Mr McLean)- of the Government's spending its way out of a recession with a larger deficit and points out the dangers to the exchange rate and inherent continued escalation of wages in line with prices. So the Board, a very responsible economic body with deep responsibilities for the action it takes, is very concerned about 'continued escalation of wages in line with prices '. Mr Hawkeis a member of the Reserve Bank Board. He also wears other hats. At the moment I understand that he is an important aspirant for a seat in the House of Representatives. On a part time basis he is President of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I always wish when he speaks that he would state on whose behalf he is making that speech. But he signed the Reserve Bank report and presumably, as he did not try to make a dissenting report he agrees with it at any rate, when acting as a member of the Reserve Bank Board. In an article in the Melbourne Age the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) was reported as saying- he has today, with some qualification, vouched for having said it- that the Arbitration Commission might have some justification for not passing on the full 6 per cent rise in the consumer price index. He has told the House that he meant that in a special way but as the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) pointed out he is not supporting a full flow-on, as is the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He says that the 3.2 per cent increase in the consumer price index in respect of the Medibank levy is a reason for some lesser figure being applied to the national wage increase. He said in his speech that a growth rate of 4 per cent had been proceeding during 1975-76. Therefore, the Government did not need to take this action in the Court if this trend continues. Surely the implication of that is that he sees some recovery taking place in the economy and that the Government is not being misleading at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion has now concluded. 193 Questions 193 Address-in-Reply Debate resumed from 10 March, on motion by Mr Groom: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of Her Majesty the Queen be agreed to: Most Gracious Sovereign: We, Your Majesty's loyal subjects, the Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to thank Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. The presence in Australia of Your Majesty and of His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh has once again brought the greatest pleasure to Your Australian people. We, their representatives in this House, are grateful for the opportunity to re-affirm our allegiance to you as our Queen. 193 XD4 Franklin 0 0 GOODLUCK, Bruce Mr GOODLUCK - I compliment the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) on his constructive address. Unfortunately, other than for his contribution, attack was the order of the day. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) bitterly attacked my friend and colleague the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Baume). No doubt this week the Leader of the Opposition will be playing hide-and-seek and honourable members may be spared another assault by him. Many honourable members have tried desperately to work constructively without continually bringing up the past. Unfortunately, in this arena one is taunted to fight and by that I mean to fight for one's very survival and reputation in the eyes of the people one represents. When this Government came to power- incidentally, by a majority vote of the people of Australia- it was confronted with a situation unparalleled in Australian history. Economic sickness was everywhere. The evidence was plain to see. There was high unemployment low industrial output and productivity as compared to many other comparable countries and an inflation rate reminiscent of those chronically mismanaged Latin American republics. Despite these factors, Donald Home still wants more. There was a shrinking standard of living for all- manager and worker. Time was running out for the powerful unions which the Labor Government protected. They were gaining the numbers but losing the real battle in the eyes of the people. This curious situation created grave problems for all in our society. Australia had not been brought to this state by war or any natural disaster. Australia's undoing was its own doing and was largely brought about by the policies of the Opposition and the resigned acceptance of the people who voted it into power and who supported it to a degree of fanaticism. Thus, the Labor Government offered a model study of how to bring to ruin a once vigorous nation. Honourable members opposite cannot deny it. The formula of the Labor Government was simple. It began by putting upon the nation an economic burden it could not bear. It introduced welfare programs. Admittedly, some were extremely good but unfortunately all these programs were paid for by higher taxes and a resort to the printing press to create money. The Government printed money created inflation that increased the cost of everything to everyone. As the inflation increased, the purchasing power of all wages and salaries decreased. No one escaped. Pensioners and people on fixed incomes were the hardest hit. The hourly wage earner saw little connection between his wages and the productivity of his labour. The job to restore this country to its previous greatness is difficult and the path so far has been strewn with obstacles, not to mention Mr Hawke, who speaks on behalf of the Opposition. Many people say to me 'Who is he? What is he? Was he elected by the people?' The answer is no. He is dedicated to bringing this Government down and unfortunately he is given coverage above that which is due to him. I say that the Government should fight him and what he stands for. I would be a hypocrite if I said that the Government does not have problems. There are many reasons why we have unemployment in Australia. If one talks to the people in small business in the private sector, they will all give you the same answer: They just cannot afford to employ people. It cannot be said that the former Labor Government was completely to blame. This Government must share part of the burden. The only way that this critical level of unemployment can be overcome is to give the private sector, particularly the person in small business, the opportunity and the incentive to employ to make absolutely certain that businesses are viable and able to withstand the demands for wages and thus make a profit. This Government is dedicated to helping the justifiably needy. It is also dedicated to extracting the ones who abuse the system and use unemployment benefits as a means of not trying to find employment. The Government's relationship with the trade union movement which we know is aligned with the Opposition is difficult. The purpose of a trade union organisation is to alter the human condition of the worker, improve his standard of living, provide a greater measure of job and income security and establish sensible rules of behaviour governing the relationship of manager and worker. What a situation we have in Australia today. In my home State of Tasmania the people on the eastern shore of Hobart have been subjected to a strike which has now been resolved but which caused a further delay in the reconstruction of the Tasman Bridge. A union demarcation dispute held up the repair of the Tasman Bridge for approximately 1 1 days and will put the opening of the bridge back for one month. I wonder whether the people involved took into account the anxiety and future hardship which the people on the eastern shore will endure, especially with winter coming on. They have suffered enough as a result of the unfortunate accident when the Lake Illawarra knocked down part of the Tasman Bridge. Surely it is the responsibility of all people that the emergency repair of the Tasman Bridge should go ahead without interruption and any person who participates in future hold-ups on that bridge can be termed only a gutless wonder of the first degree. The average union member is conscientious and hard working but he is the meat in the sandwich destroyed by the greediness and stupidity of some union officials who, at the present moment, are determined to bring down this Government. Talking seems to be a waste of time. I believe that the people of Australia who elected this Government to power want it to honour its pledge to bring this section of the trade union movement under control. The Government is able, by law, to restrict the trade union movement in secondary boycotts and unnecessary political strikes that affect the heart and economy of Australia. It seems dreadfully unfortunate that we should be thwarted in every move that we attempt to make to remedy the problems that are confronting Australia today. If there are real problems, let us, for the sake of the nation, start working together. We have critical problems confronting the country in the area of fuel and energy and future fuel supplies for the people of Australia. I believe that the restructuring of the oil industry and the continuation of further exploration is imperative if this nation is to regain its previous greatness. Never again should there be a variation in the price of petroleum such as that which exists in Australia today. Although the oil companies may be critical of the Royal Commission on Petroleum and the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission on crude oil, they agreed that in some areas reforms are desirable and necessary for the benefit not only of the general public but also all of those employed in the inudstry. The free world has a serious energy problem. Oil, on which it is so dependent, is a finite resource, and there is not enough of it in the right places. We must develop and adhere to conservation programs which will permit economic growth as they moderate our energy consumption. We must get on with the rigorous development of alternative sources of energy. That means policy continuity from governments which will encourage all energy enterprises to put forth maximum effort. It means enlisting, rather than frustrating, the efforts of all who can contribute. 194 KSF Sydney ALP 0 0 MCMAHON, James Mr Les McMahon - I must agree with those of my colleagues on this side of the House who said that when Her Majesty outlined the Government's program it was positive proof of a total lack of policy direction by the Government. The Queen's Speech regrettably is no exception. It is doubtful whether even Government members believe its stale propaganda, its lies and statements which are not even half truths. The Queen stated in her Speech: ... my Government has given first priority to restoring the economy and will use all the resources at its disposal to achieve this goal. The people of Australia are waiting for actionwhere is it- honesty, sincerity and, above all, results. All they have is broken promises. The people voted for the Fraser Government in 1975. How many members of this Government will survive more than one term because of the Government's broken promises? The people are sick of this Government's attempts to blame Labor for the mess which the Government itself is making of the economy and of the nation. What have we been saddled with? We have had one Liberal Budget, one mini Budget, and the biggest devaluation for 40 years. The Government has no economic policy. It has no policy whatsoever. We know that it intends to bluff its way through to the next election with an attack upon the work force and on the wages front. That is its only basis for political survival. Honourable members should reflect on the 1975 elections. During the election campaign the main planks of the Government's platform were to reduce inflation and unemployment, to abolish rural poverty, and to increase the real level of farm incomes, as well as other policies which I will discuss in the time allotted to me. After 15 months in office the conservative Government has chalked up a record which must surely brand it as the greatest mismanager of all times. As I have stated before, it is leaving behind it a trail of broken electoral promises and blunders. The Fraser Government has effectively lowered real income for wage and salary earners by $400m per annum, stagnated production and investment in capital equipment, continued to oppose wage indexation, despite an estimated inflation rate for 1977 of 15 per cent to 20 per cent, and depleted business confidence at home and abroad by its inconsistent and panicky economic policy. Unemployment has reached proportions unprecedented since the Great Depression, and the situation has little prospect of improving. In fact, if the Government continues its present economic strategy the level of unemployment- that is, the true level of unemployment- is likely to reach the 600 000 mark within the next 6 months. The latest statistics show that 5.7 per cent of the national work force are registered as unemployed, that the New South Wales average is higher at 6.69 per cent, and that regional unemployment runs as high as 17.7 per cent in centres such as Coffs Harbour. Despite this despicably high and rising level of unemployment, the Government, in its last Budget, reduced its expenditure on unemployment benefits by $33m. As well as that, the Government has begun taxing unemployment benefits by up to 33W per cent and it continues to discriminate against the unemployed in the under 18 age group by denying them increased benefits. In addition, the Government has introduced a strict new work test and screening process. That is an approach which clearly exemplifies the short-sightedness, greed and sheer contempt which the Fraser Government and its supporters hold for the unemployed. Of particular infamy are the following features of the Government's new approach: Younger members of the unemployed are forced to move away from home to take jobs or they are deprived of receiving the unemployment benefit. A 6-week waiting period for the unemployment benefit has been introduced in respect of people who voluntarily terminate employment. That policy is rigorously applied regardless of the circumstances. Even the failure of an employee to receive award conditions or an employer's immoral behaviour to a female employee does not constitute a defence against that embargo. In order to continue to receive the unemployment benefit applicants are forced periodically to hand deliver income statements to the local Commonwealth Employment Service office. There have been organised mass raids on unemployed people, and the Commonwealth Police have briefed departmental officers on investigation and interrogation techniques. The number of staff assigned to field work detection of bludgers has been increased. The appalling unemployment situation has been aggravated by the insane policy followed by the Fraser Government which has, in its clumsy attempt to curb inflation, totally ignored the problem of unemployment to which its policies are adding. The Government should be concerned that significant groups in our society are suffering as a result of continued high unemployment levels. Apparently this Government is not concerned. School leavers are being denied the opportunity to secure career employment and apprenticeships. Older workers, on becoming unemployed, are finding it increasingly difficult to secure further employment and are forming the new core of unemployed. Migrants confronted by language barriers and skill deficiencies are also most seriously affected, as are working women, particularly those supporting families. Amidst this social suffering the Fraser Government has shown an alarming disregard for the long term consequences of its policies of financial stringency. One wonders whether the Government is fully aware of the warning given by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development that long term unemployment leads to loss of skill and motivation and that the longer the period of unemployment the harder it is to help the unemployed. Next to the unions, the unemployed are no doubt the Government's favourite whipping post. The Government continually stigmatises the unemployed as being dole bludgers or, worse still, believes them to be a myth. It is presently contemplating stepping up its harassment measures in a feeble attempt to cover up its own failures. Unbelievable as it seems in this present economic climate, the Fraser Government has abolished the regional employment development scheme and the national apprenticeship assistance scheme. It has watered down the national employment and training scheme. In their place the Government has set up the community youth support scheme, the Commonwealth rebate apprenticeships full time training scheme and the pre-apprenticeship funding arrangements scheme, which are hardly a replacement for their predecessors, as is indicated by the ever worsening and crisis level of youth unemployment. In fact, these government initiatives must bear much of the responsibility for the dramatic fall off in apprenticeship training which is destined to have serious consequences for Australia's industrial development 10 or 20 years hence. If the Government has any social conscience at all it should be making the restoration of full employment a national goal and it should be seriously encouraging all sections of the community to achieve the goal. Federally financed programs such as the RED scheme conducted with local government bodies to produce socially useful amenities and facilities should be reintroduced. Funds should be made available to develop a major capital works program to be carried out by both State and Federal governments. To deal with the special problems confronting school leavers, the Government should provide increased funding and facilities for pre-employment training to assist in the development of skills which will assist young people to find satisfactory employment. The Government needs to reverse its priorities in regard to technical and tertiary education. In the present financial year, the Government will spend $98 lm on tertiary and advanced education and $82m on apprenticeship training. This represents 8c spent on tradesmen for every dollar spent on tertiary education. This is despite the fact that Australian industry is suffering presently from a critical lack of skilled tradesmen. Even last year, the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, said that it was time to stop expanding in academic fields and start educating people for jobs. Well, what about putting words into action thereby ensuring Australia's industrial development in the future? Most importantly, Government initiatives are required to restore business confidence and generate expansion and investment before increased employment opportunities may result. Those who call for the dismantling and rationalisation of Australia's manufacturing industries and the development of the extractive and service industries overlook the extent to which the Australian work force is involved in manufacturing and the disastrous effect on unemployment and the resultant social consequences such policies will produce. Manufacturing activities should continue to be supported actively by government and the export of jobs should be avoided at all costs. In this regard, State governments can do much to assist and the initiatives already proposed by Premier Wran in respect of payroll tax concessions to manufacturers who undertake expansion programs must be welcomed. The Australian shipbuilding and ship repair industry is one area in which Federal Government support could regenerate an industry of vital importance to Australia's future development as well as ensure jobs for many thousands of Australians. It is now evident that unless drastic steps are taken immediately in restoring this industry, Australia will become dependent on overseas interests who will show us little mercy. One viable long term solution would be to bring the industry under national public ownership as is the case in the United Kingdom. In the short term, substantial assistance by way of capital should be forthcoming for re-equipment and the provision of shipbuilding orders for publicly owned ships from the State dockyards. It would be very easy to go on about the deficiencies that exist in the Fraser Government's policy. In particular, this Government seems prepared to excuse almost any injustice or anomaly in policy in the name of pruning the deficit. To sum up the expediency of the Fraser Government's social policies over the last 15 months: Pensions have been reduced in real value and have been taxed up to one-third of the pension; costs of drugs under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme have increased by $34m; Labor's free legal aid service has been dismantled; Medibank has been destroyed; the Australian Assistance Plan has been starved of funds and discarded; funds for growth centres have been cut out and funds for sewerage works have been cut back. Since gaining office, this Government has demonstrated its commitment to strengthening the rule of the rich and to redistributing the nation's wealth to the already wealthy industrialists and multinationalists at the expense of the poor, thereby undoing every attempt by governments since Federation to make Australia a more equitable society. This is truly tragic and a far cry from the Government's claim of being committed to increasing the freedom, opportunity and equality of the Australian people and being concerned with enhancing the people's ability to make their own choices and live their own lives in their own way. Although every country has had a recession, crippling inflation, a large deficit and high unemployment, no government other than the Fraser Government has decided that the best way to reduce inflation and unemployment and to end the recession is to attack the standards of health services, social welfare, transport, roads, etc. Meanwhile, the recession in Australia gets worse as other countries pull out of it. How can the many millions of Australians living below or near the minimum wage be expected to exercise equality of job opportunity and freedom of choice when they are battling to keep their heads above rising costs and receiving second rate legal, education, health, housing, welfare and transport services? No matter how much money Australians have in their pockets, there are some things they cannot buy for themselves. No matter how much money a family has, it cannot buy a road, a school, a railway, a hospital or a university. It cannot buy a decent environment. It cannot buy a playing field or a library or a national highway. Of course personal incomes are important, but no matter how much we have in our pockets, we cannot buy the basic amenities that make for a secure and civilised life. They are things which only governments can provide. The Liberal-National Country Party Government does not think so. Its policies are policies of social poverty. The Fraser Government is promoting a dual economy, a dual society, 2 nations- a minority of very rich, including a minority abroad to share in those riches, and the vast deprived majority of the people living in worlds apart. Again the Fraser Government has cheated the pensioners. Delays between announcements of each quarterly movement in the consumer price index and their application as a percentage increase in age and invalid pensions are excessive, unnecessary, discriminatory and a cause of economic distress to pensioners. As well as this the appropriateness of the use of the CPI for the purpose of adjusting pensions is questionable since the weightings applied in the CPI are not those of the people who earn less than the minimum wage and therefore may represent an understatement of the true cost of living rises for pensioners. In 1975, one indexation was deferred for a month. Now the December and March indexations will be delayed until 12 May, putting pensioners even further behind in their desperate race against rising prices. Even the proposed 8 per cent increase in pensions will not compensate for the rising cost of living. In fact the 8 per cent increase was based on the combined movement in the CPI for the September and December quarters and therefore was not intended to compensate for the rising costs since December. Pensioners, shamefully comprising a large proportion of those least well off in the community, are victims of the Government's obsession with pruning the deficit and wage restraint as well as departmental inefficiency. In the name of justice, the Government should remove all delays in pension rises by immediately introducing automatic indexation of social security benefits and should not wait until 12 May. In addition, the Government should take steps immediately to introduce a new index for the purpose of adjusting pensions, one based on a survey of those living below the minimum wage and heavily weighted in favour of the basics- food, clothing and housing. Only then would pensions be allowed to keep pace with the true cost of living for their income bracket. Debate (on motion by Mr Drummond) adjourned. 197 miscellaneous 197 197 MI4 Kooyong LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 PEACOCK, Andrew Mr PEACOCK - by leave- In this statement I shall review the main aspects of the Government's foreign policy during the 15 months it has been in office, indicate the understanding of Australia's interests and of the international situation on which it has been based, and direct attention to some of the key issues which will confront us in the near future. As it happened, the Government's first year in office coincided with the beginning of the last quarter of this century. Marking the flow of history into centuries and fractions of centuries is usually an artificial and unprofitable business, for historical trends are not respectors of dates. But occasionally such divisions do coincide with significant, even profound, transitions in human affairs, and when they do they can help to dramatise and focus attention on those changes. This is true in the present instance. The last 25 years were dominated by the tension between the super powers in an essentially bi-polar world. This domination was as evident in the overriding priority given to the search for super-power detente in the later years as it was in the stark cold war confrontation of the early years. It was a period characterised by the priority given to the ideological and military dimensions of world affairs, and by a high degree of political immobility. During it, the Third World countries, absorbed in gaining or consolidating their independence, tended to be objects of international politics rather than actors. For the developed countries the last quarter century was, until near its end, a period of sustained and spectacular economic growth, symbolised best, perhaps, by the economic miracles of Japan and West Germany. It was a period of unprecedented affluence, and this experience profoundly affected attitudes and expectations, at least in Western countries. This picture is now rapidly changing. The ability of the super powers to control other states and to determine the agenda of international politics has diminished perceptibly, and they are being forced to give less attention to each other and more to third parties. While the question of the military balance remains crucial, the process of converting military strength into political power and influence has become more complex and uncertain. The potency of ideology- at least of the ideologies of the cold war- has diminished, and pragmatism, scepticism and dissent have become more prevalent. Alignments are less fixed and static and there is more room for manoeuvre. Since the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries decision on oil prices in 1973, the Third World countries have shown a new assertiveness and confidence, and in their collective capacity have thrust themselves on the international scene as initiators of change particularly on economic matters. During this period, the momentum of growth in the world 's economies was temporarily arrested and governments wrestled with the twin problems of inflation and recession. There was some recovery in the world economy in 1976 and further progress is expected in the current yearalthough clearly there is a long way to go before inflation is brought under control. Global economic, social and environmental questions have assumed major prominence. I deliberately begin this statement by drawing attention to these changes. I do so, not as an academic exercise, but because they provide an essential framework for any realistic consideration of Australia's foreign policy during the coming years. Unless we take account of them, and make an effort to understand them- unless, that is, we have at least a provisional map of the future into which we and the world are movingour assumptions and perspectives will be inadequate. This is a real danger, for as a people we have tended to approach foreign policy with a short-term, improvising outlook. We now need to learn to think strategically and in terms of decades, rather than tactically and in terms of instant solutions- and we need to do so urgently. I do not exaggerate the extent of the changes. I recognise the validity of the historians' warning that it is important to identify not only what is beginning but what is not ending at a given time. The traditional issues of international politics are not about to disappear, and some of themnotably the control and limitations of military power- will inevitably become more critical. But, collectively, the impact of the developments I have described must be great. They will both render existing problems more complex and unfamiliar, and supplement them with new ones. It is going to be of vital importance to Australia that these effects and their implications for her interests, are properly understood. An awareness of this is not something suddenly arrived at by the Government. On the contrary, it permeates the thinking contained in the coalition parties' policy statement of October 1975, and has been repeatedly stressed in subsequent statements by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and myself. Most important, it has been manifest in the policies we have been implementing. 198 One of the things we have stressed throughout is the importance of strengthening Australia's relations with the major developed democracies. As the major sources of the world's trade, finance and technology, these are the countries on whom the recovery, reform and smooth functioning of the international economic system principally depend. Both in their individual capacities and as a kind of de facto trilateral alliance, the contribution of the United States, Japan and Western Europe will be crucial as far as the whole global agenda is concerned. If Australia is to have adequate access to the North-South dialogue, if it is to be a properly participating member of the various other forums where these matters are discussed, if the democratic concert of which President Carter has spoken is going to become a reality- then we have to address ourselves seriously to ensuring that our voice is heard and our interests taken into account. In conducting its affairs with these 3 great centres of democratic economic power over the last 15 months, the Government has had these considerations, as well as bilateral relations, well in the forefront of its attention. I put Japan first deliberately, for in no other year in our history has our relationship with that country been given such an impetus as in the last 12 months. Certainly the only year ever to compare with it is 1957, when Sir Robert Menzies and Sir John McEwen negotiated the Treaty of Commerce. The last year has witnessed visits to Japan by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), the final signing of the Basic Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, the ratification of the Cultural Agreement, the establishment of the Australia-Japan Foundation, and, in January of this year, the fourth meeting of the Australia-Japan Ministerial Committee, which was attended by 4 Australian Cabinet members. Some of these measures were initiated by the previous Government, but it was the energy and determination of this Government that brought them all to completion so quickly after coming to office. This activity has flowed from a clear recognition of the importance of Japan in Australia's future, both as a major economic power and a critical factor in the affairs of the western Pacific region. Our concern has been, firstly, to consolidate our important and substantial economic relationship by recognising the mutual interests of both countries in being stable and reliable suppliers and markets for each other; secondly, to create the machinery and spirit necessary to deal with the strains and differences which inevitably develop periodically; and thirdly, to supplement and support the economic tie with closer political, cultural and social ones. The cumulative effect of these steps was most evident at the Ministerial Committee in January. That meeting was a very important one in practical terms. Extremely useful progress was made regarding the Australian beef quota. The port access agreements for Japanese vessels were extended. The Japanese Government gave an assurance that imports of coal and iron ore from Australia during 1977 would be maintained at 1976 levels. There was an agreement to examine the possibility of reducing air fares between the 2 countries to facilitate contacts between our peoples. Japan accepted our proposals for periodic joint meetings between a range of senior officials from both sides. As well as all this however, I think that all those who took part in the talks were left with the sense that the whole relationship has now been put on a new plane, that its importance and potential are fully understood. This was as evident in the directness and frankness of the discussions as it was in the spirit of compromise that prevailed. The recent decision to appoint an ad hoc working committee, to report to Cabinet on ways in which the coordination of Australian policy towards Japan can be improved, may be taken as a clear indication that we intend to build purposefully on the foundation which has been laid. I turn now to our relations with the United States. The first thing to be said about them is that the uncertainty about the future course of Australian policy, the doubts, reservations and acrimony which were so much a feature of the previous Government's dealings with the United States, have been removed. We pursue Australia's interests, express our disagreement with American policy where it exists, but the fundamental importance attached to the alliance and the general relationship are no longer in question. During the last year American affairs were dominated by the presidential election. As these elections have often been criticised in the past for their disruptive effects on American public life, I think it is worth observing that this one established that they can also serve the purpose of regeneration and renewal. During this election there was a palpable sense of a healing of wounds and the renewal of self-confidence. The Government worked effectively to establish early contact with Mr Carter, and with many who have now become key figures in his Administration, and we have acquainted ourselves very thoroughly with their views on foreign policy. I note amongst other things the emphasis in these views on the strengthening of ties with well established, democratic allies; the concern with finding a secure moral basis for policy and for ensuring that policy is consistent with the values of the American people; the stress on hard headed bargaining and reciprocity as the basis for sound and productive relations between the super powers; and the importance given to an energetic and imaginative response to those global problems which are rightly identified as crucial. As far as the last of these is concerned, I will make 2 points. First, the strife and uncertainty of the last few years in America's history should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the United States' capacity for contributing to the solution of these global problems is unparalleled. In terms of all the ingredients necessary for a solutionfood production, technology, investment and aid capacity, managerial and research skills, and, certainly not least, a deep, humanitarian sense of responsibility- the United States is preeminent, and no solution is conceivable without its serious commitment. Secondly, from our Government's standpoint, the new Administration's commitment on these issues gives a new significance to the concern, expressed by the Prime Minister and myself, to develop the American alliance not only as an instrument to make Australia more secure but also as one which, joining as it does two of the democracies richest in resources, can make a significant contribution to the solution of global problems. The Government has already indicated to President Carter that we share his sense of urgency and that we intend to participate actively in the international efforts to find solutions to these problems. The third great centre of democratic power and development is Western Europe. Given our origins and history, it is the centre with which we could be expected to have the closest relationship. However, this has not been the case. It is true that there is a substantial trade relationshipthe European Economic Community supplies us with more of our imports than anyone else and takes more of our exports than anyone else except Japan. But beyond that there has not been, at least until very recently, any concerted and determined effort on either side to develop a broad and balanced relationship. The Government believes that, given the trends in international affairs, this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, and that our relationship with the European communities must be brought closer to the level of the relationships we have with the other 2 great industrial democracies. Western Europe's strategic and political importance, its increasing significance as an international personality in important conferences and forums, its role in maintaining and strengthening a viable international economic system, its potential as a source of development aid to developing countries through the Lome Convention arrangement- all these point to the need to move in that direction. Consequently, the Government has been very active during the last year in moving to strengthening our ties. In June of last year we sent the first delegation of senior officials for talks in Brussels, thus inaugurating a system of annual across the board consultations with the Commission of the European communities. The second of these meetings began in Canberra this morning. In October 1976 I visited Brussels and had talks both with communities and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation heads. Under further exploration, since my departure, has been our concern to develop more useful political and military contacts with NATO which might both enlarge the range and depth of NATO information available to Australia and broaden the basis of Australia's relationship in a political context. The Prime Minister and I will again visit Brussels in June of this year. There is already evidence that Australia is assuming sharper definition in European eyes. What we are moving towards is a regular, institutionalised system of wide-ranging consultation at various levels ranging from ministerial meetings to middle-order official discussions. These consultations are not expected to remove all problems. Our difficulties with the common agricultural policy of the EEC are real and substantial. It will be to the advantage of both sides if these can be discussed in the context of a more substantial framework of contacts and consultation, which will help to remove misunderstanding and provide an opportunity for exploring areas of mutual interest. 200 As one aspect of our policy has been to strengthen relations with the major democracies, another has been to place our relations with the major communist countries on a more pragmatic, less ideological, basis. This is not because our opinions of the ideologies have changed, or because we find the repressive aspects of communism any more acceptable. Again it follows from changes in the international system. In a less static, polarised and ideological world, we can afford to give less weight to ideology and more to a discriminating evaluation of actual behaviour and capabilities, and their relevance to us. The Prime Minister's visit to China in June 1976, and the extensive discussions that took place during it, confirmed our earlier evaluation that, in the prevailing circumstances and on the basis of a realistic reading of existing configuration of forces, China's foreign policy is concerned to maintain global and regional stability. This is a fact of enormous significance for the immediate future of the region. We share this concern and will do what we can to sustain it. We believe that it is more likely to be sustained if China is fully integrated into the international system of communication and consultation, and we have made this view known to other governments. In terms of our bilateral relationships, the historical background and the enormous cultural differences between our societies point to the initial need for what might be termed a familiarisation process and steady progress, rather than spectacular gestures. We have proceeded in these terms. The family reunion agreement, concluded in October 1976 after long negotiations, is an achievement of considerable human and practical significance for people of Chinese origin in our community. We are examining the possibilities of establishing an Australia-China foundation which would function as a particularly useful addition to other points of contact between our 2 countries. We are also examining the scope for co-operation in the exchange of technical information in areas of shared interest such as the development of semiarid land. We expect that the visit of the superb archeological exhibition now in Australia, and of a party of Chinese newspaper editors in January, will be followed by regular exchanges and visits both ways. Later in the year, we expect to welcome a delegation from the National People's Congress and it is worth observing that such a visit to a non-communist country is unusual. Against the background of vast emptiness and silence which represented early Sino-Australian relations, steps such as these have a cumulative significance. There are 3 further points it is necessary to make about our relations with China. The first is that our concern with improving relations has in no way inhibited us from taking up matters on which we disagree. In the Peking talks it was apparent that these include such important questions as nuclear proliferation and testing, our respective positions on the Middle East conflict, and the question of support for insurgency, particularly in South East Asia. These are anything but trivial matters and there has been no attempt to minimise the significance of the differences over them. On the question of support for insurgency, in their talks with the Prime Minister the Chinese leaders used a formula which, in the view of Dr Stephen Fitzgerald, our then Ambassador in Peking, was significantly different from ones they had previously used. But what is important ultimately- and it is very important- is what happens on the ground. We shall be watching with close interest for evidence of changes in levels of activity and degrees of support. The second point is that in our dealings with China we have to take into account the elements of uncertainty in China's domestic affairs and the effects these may have on foreign policy. In the last year the 2 founders of contemporary ChinaMao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai- have died. Such a double loss in so short a time, and the problem of succession it raises, represents a severe test for a regime which has been in existence for less than 30 years. The practical, and perhaps the symbolic, effect of a devastating earthquake in the same year must have added to the sense of dislocation. Recognising the element of uncertainty, I can only say that at this time we see no evidence of the likelihood of a sudden and radical discontinuity in China 's foreign policy. The last point I wish to make- and both the Prime Minister and I have made it before- is that anyone who interprets our policy towards China as essentially a function of our policy towards a third country is proceeding on a wrong assumption and will arrive at a wrong conclusion. We are not 'taking sides' and we are not 'ganging up' on anyone. It is appropriate that I end what I have to say about relations with China on this point for the third country usually referred to in this context is the Soviet Union, and I turn to our relations with that country. 201 If China is important to Australia principally because of the great significance it has within our region, the Soviet Union is important as a global power. Because of the reach of its power, its formidable ability to influence the course of events far beyond its boundaries, and, above all, its capacity to influence the overriding issues of peace and war, we, like every other country, have to pay close attention to the Soviet Union. As the Prime Minister and I have previously emphasised, our bilateral relations with the Soviet Union are sound and we wish to make them as extensive and friendly as possible. During the last year two senior Australian Ministersthe Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon)visited and held wide-ranging and useful talks there. Agreements on scientific, technical and cultural cooperation are being actively implemented. Australia has recently achieved substantially increased sales of beef and mutton to the Soviet Union, and both countries are actively promoting trade with each other. We hope that the degree of trade imbalance that now exists can be corrected over time. We also hope that the ties between us can be developed and will give careful consideration to Soviet proposals as well as to formulating our own. There is therefore little in our bilateral relationship which causes the Australian Government concern. What does concern us and what we have have felt obliged to draw to public attention is the extent, and the implications, of the Soviet arms build-up in recent years. That build-up threatens to destabilise the fundamental strategic balance. If it continues it will leave others in the position of either having to match the Soviet effort, causing a steep upward spiral in the arms race, or of acquiescing in Soviet superiority. In either case the peace of the world will be threatened. There is no need to deny the complexities and ambiguities of the debate on the strategic balance- they are real enough. But they must not be allowed to obscure the essence of the matter, which is that over the last 10 years the Soviet Union has: First, closed the strategic nuclear gap between the United States and itself; second, substantially closed the naval gap between the United States and itself; and third, rapidly widened the gap in conventional land forces in its favour. Having done this it continues to outspend the United States in its arms program and shows no sign of letting up. When the Prime Minister drew attention to these facts last June he was widely criticised, as if drawing attention to them, rather than the facts themselves, constituted the danger to peace. Subsequently, the balance of informed Western opinion has strongly confirmed what the Prime Minister said. Throughout the Western world- in social democratic countries as well as ones with conservative governments, from civilian sources as well as military ones- there is deep concern at the trends in the military balance. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Foreign Ministers stated as recently as 8 December 1976 that: They viewed with concern the high level of military expenditure in the Soviet Union and the continued disquieting expansion of the military power of the Warsaw Pact on land, air and sea which are difficult to reconcile with the avowed desire of the Soviet Union to improve East- West relations. There are some who say that even if all this is true, it is not appropriate for an Australian government to comment on it. We do not accept that view. The question of world peace is not a regional matter, nor something to be left exclusively to the great powers. It concerns everybody. We cannot in one breath speak of peace as being indivisible and in the next maintain that unless there is a perceptible and direct threat to ourselves we should keep silent. Similar considerations apply, I think, to recent evidence of continuing restraints on intellectual freedom in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. But at the same time we assure the leaders of the Soviet Union that criticising one of the world's super powers is not something we do lightly or with relish, and we want nothing more than the removal of the justification for our concern. We hope, profoundly, that they will respond to the approach of a new American President for a genuine arms control agreement which will lead to a substantial reduction in the accumulation of military power. 202 I turn now to our regional relationships and policies. Together with our relationships with the major democracies, these form the core of our foreign policy. They are important both in terms of the traditional international agenda, in that they bear upon the peace and stability of our neighbourhood, and of the emerging issues I have referred to. For the part of the Third World which is most relevant to us, that we can do most to assist, and in which we can best demonstrate our intent, is that which is adjacent to us. It is here that the global problems- problems of development, trade, population growth, refugees- become also regional problems. The processes of transition which I have identified are very marked throughout the region. In South East Asia, the success of the members of the Association of South East Asian Nations, that is, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, in achieving an impressive degree of unity and purposefulness, and the unification of Vietnam into one state, have given the affairs of the region a different structure and atmosphere. At this time there is probably less internal dissension and violence in the area than at any time since the end of the Second World War. To point to this development and the encouraging examples of economic growth in the region is not to claim that all is well there. The memory of recent terrible and tragic events is still fresh, and there are still serious points of tension and areas of instability there. In my experience the countries of the region have a very realistic appreciation of the tasks still facing them and of the fragility of the progress so far made. Nevertheless the progress is real. The Government attaches the greatest importance to consolidating and developing our relationship with the 5 members of ASEAN, both individually and collectively. On their two basic political priorities- the determination to see a region free of great-power rivalry and domination, and the concern to develop harmonious and co-operative relations among the countries of the region themselves- we are in full agreement with them. This Government recognises that, while political and security considerations will always be vitally important and while aid in various forms is, for the foreseeable future, indispensable, the ASEAN countries are increasingly concerned to develop their economic relations with Australia. For our part we are determined that they shall be developed, for we fully recognise the importance of healthy economic growth in the region and the importance of expanding trade for the developing economies generally. We have stated our position on this matter. It is that any significant change in our trade relations will have to take place gradually to minimise any domestic dislocation in this country. The fact that we make these stipulations is evidence not that we are concerned to prevaricate or delay for its own sake, but, on the contrary, that we are serious about the matter and determined to approach it in a systematic and viable mannerrather than simply to make a political gesture. Progress in these matters depends on the recovery of the Australian economy. In the meantime we recognise that if now is not the time to act, now is the time to prepare for action. We decided, in December, to form an interdepartmental standing committee to review all aspects of our relations with the ASEAN countries and make positive recommendations on the way they can be improved. The composition of that committee, which is heavily weighted on the economic side, is a clear indication of our purpose in this matter. The invitation I have extended to the Secretary-General of ASEAN, General Dharsono, to visit Australia in the near future further emphasises this purpose. Preparations are also going ahead for discussions, probably in May, between senior ASEAN and Australian officials to examine a wide range of matters connected with the development of closer economic relations between Australia and the ASEAN countries. As far as the countries of Indo-China are concerned, it is in Australia's interest to see the 3 governments participate in the kind of peaceful activities which will contribute towards bringing about their own economic progress and harmonious relationships in the region. We are not being starry-eyed about this. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, with a population of 50 million and the most formidable military apparatus in South East Asia, is a communist state hardened by 30 years of revolutionary struggle and war. What course it will take will be crucial to the future of the region. The new regime in Cambodia began its rule in the most savage and drastic manner. We believe, however, that nothing will be gained by either Australia or the region ostracising, ignoring or setting out to alienate these governments. In the case of Vietnam in particular, it will be dangerous if it is placed in a position where it feels that it can only maintain cordial relations with other communist states. We have put this view to the United States during the past year. There are signs that Vietnam does not wish to be placed in such a position. While it views ASEAN with some suspicion, a suspicion which it is possible to understand though it is completely unwarranted, it has made sensible efforts to improve its bilateral relations with ASEAN members. It has joined various international organisations and has shown an interest in foreign investments from non-communist sources. It is Australia's policy to encourage it in this direction. We have supported its successful application for membership of the Asian Development Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as its so-far unsuccessful application for membership of the United Nations. We have initiated a modest aid program, for humanitarian as well as political reasons, one that concentrates on agricultural development where the benefits to the people of Vietnam will be most apparent. These steps should make it evident to the Government of Vietnam that if it wishes to establish a peaceful and constructive role for itself in the region, Australia will be concerned to assist it. As far as our other bilateral relationships in the region are concerned, I will mention only two: that with Indonesia over Timor and that with Papua New Guinea. When we came to office in November 1975 we inherited a situation in Timor which was already far developed. Most of the limited opportunities for exerting influence had already passed. Short of physical interventionand I do not think that was contemplated by any responsible Australian- our purchase on the situation was slight. There were very vocal groups in Australia who maintained that in this issue our only concern should be to maintain our good relations with Indonesia. There were other groups who maintained that our only concern should be with what they believed to be the interests of the Timorese and opposition to outside intervention. The Government believes that both these views over-simplified the issues and that Australia's interests would be best served by finding a balance between these concerns. At the United Nations General Assembly in December 1975, we voted in support of a resolution appealing to the parties in Portuguese Timor to join in talks to end the strife and calling for the withdrawal of Indonesian troops. At the same time we suggested the sending of a United Nations special representative to Timor, and this was subsequently done. We assisted that representative, Mr Winspeare Guicciardi, with radio facilities to attempt to contact Fretilin, and we indicated that if all parties would guarantee his safety, we would provide him with transport to visit the territory. We urged, consistently and strongly, that the International Red Cross be allowed to resume activity in East Timor. When this did not eventuate, we contributed $330,000 in aid to the Indonesian Red Cross, as the only means available to relieve distress in the territory. We have been particularly concerned about the plight of those refugees who have come to Australia without their families. Arrangements are well advanced for many of these people to be reunited with each other. Our opposition to the use of force to settle problems in the region has been clearly registered and still stands. But throughout we have striven to maintain our close and friendly relations with the Indonesian Government and to contain our differences over the Timor question. To jeopardise these relations would not have been in Australia's interests and would not have benefited the people of East Timor. The Prime Minister's visit to Indonesia in October 1976 established that the relationship continues to be soundly and firmly based. Since coming to office shortly after Papua New Guinea's accession to independence in September 1975, the Government has given high priority to laying a solid basis for the new, postindependence era of the relationship with our nearest neighbour. During the prime ministerial visits by Mr Somare to Canberra in March 1976 and by Mr Fraser to Port Moresby last month, and in my many discussions over the past year with the Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister, Sir Maori Kiki, the great importance which both governments attach to the relationship between the 2 countries has been unequivocally reaffirmed. The Australian Government has also reaffirmed the pledge of successive Australian governments to give the highest priority to providing assistance to Papua New Guinea. Indeed, we have improved on it. The new aid commitment announced in March 1976 which guaranteed Papua New Guinea at the very least $930m over the 5-year period beginning in 1976-77 represented a substantial increase in Australian assistance: The new aid arrangements were also designed to put an end to Australian involvement in Papua New Guinea's budgetmaking and have been warmly welcomed by Mr Somare 's Government as a substantial contribution to Papua New Guinea's ability to move towards its objective of self-reliance and to determine and implement its own development priorities. Substantial progress has also been made during the past year in the negotiation of a range of long-term bilateral agreements and arrangements including the Trade and Commercial Relations Agreement and an Agreement on Air Services. The same is true of the negotiations which began in May 1976 for a settlement of all issues relating to Torres Strait. There are a number of points not yet resolved and more work needs to be done on the complex legal and humanitarian issues involved. But both governments are determined and confident that outstanding issues can and will be resolved through a continued process of amicable and direct bilateral negotiation. As my colleague, the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) informed the House on 23 February, a status of forces agreement was signed in January and a joint statement on the future defence relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea was issued by the 2 Prime Ministers on 1 1 February. The relationship between our 2 countries by no means depends solely on the actions of governments; it is sustained by personal associations and friendships which reach into every corner of our 2 societies. It is a complex and intimate relationship which reflects the many abiding common interests we have. The relationship is soundly-based and I look with confidence to its future. In the second of the regions in which we have a special interest, the South Pacific, there is again a rapidly-accelerating pace of change. In the next 2 years, 3 countries- the Solomon Islands, the Gilbert Islands and Tuvalu- are likely to achieve independence. The Anglo-French condominium of the New Hebrides is moving towards self-government and eventual independence; the future status of the United States trust territories is being actively considered. Contacts with countries outside the region are increasing, notably through the relationship which has developed between Fiji, Western Samoa, Tonga and Papua New Guinea and the European communities through the Lome Convention, though there are also significant developments in bilateral diplomatic relations. In the South Pacific Forum and the South Pacific Commission the countries of the region are also actively studying possibilities for closer regional co-operation, such as shipping, telecommunication, civil aviation services, and law of the sea matters, including the policing and surveillance of 200-mile economic zones and the possibility of establishing a South-Pacific fisheries agency. In retrospect I think it is clear that in earlier years Australian governments of both persuasions have not given the South Pacific the attention it deserves. In terms of the considerable problems its countries face, in terms of the importance of the area for Australia, and in terms of the impact which even a quite limited intrusion by outside powers can have on the smaller countries, it deserves serious attention. Australia is now working in close collaboration with our regional partner, New Zealand, to assist the countries of the South Pacific in advancing the welfare of their people. As I announced in Suva last October, we have now carried out a major revision of Australia's South Pacific aid program. It has been placed on a rolling 3-year basis with an initial commitment of $60m for the period 1976-79. This amounted to an increase of 400 per cent. In addition, guidelines have been made more flexible to allow the program to meet the particular needs of different countries more effectively. The Australian Government's policy towards the third region which is necessarily of particular concern to us, the Indian Ocean, is based on the premise that it can only become a zone of peace if it first becomes a zone of balance. Our concern, repeatedly stated, is that this balance be achieved at the lowest practicable level. We support an American presence at a level sufficient to maintain a balance and we neither seek nor urge a greater capability. The United States for its part is committed to a policy of restraint and the new Administration has signalled since it took office that it would be interested in negotiating a bilateral arms limitation agreement with the Soviet Union on the Indian Ocean. President Carter last week confirmed this. It is, of course, early days yet to judge what the prospects are for such negotiations. We have drawn attention to the Soviet naval presence in the Ocean not because we see it as a direct threat to Australia but because we see it as a destabilising and exacerbating development in the global strategic picture. We supported the modest extension of the facilities in Diego Garcia because of the existence of the very extensive Soviet facilities in Berbera, and the not insignificant ones elsewhere in and around the Ocean. If both can be removed by mutual agreement, so much the better. An Indian Ocean zone of peace is an objective with which Australia has sympathy and we recognise that those who sponsor it are concerned with the same end as we are, namely, a stable peace in the Indian Ocean. The degree of complementarity between the 2 approaches was evident in the communique that was issued at the end of the Indonesian visit last October, when it said: Pending the achievement of a zone of peace, the President and the Prime Minister recognised that a balance in the Indian Ocean at as low a level as possible should make it possible to avoid a competitive escalation of forces. We believe this gets it right. Areas of tension Apart from those trends in the central strategic balance to which I have referred, international peace is most immediately threatened by the chronic tension which exists in three widelyseparated regions- southern Africa, the Middle East and north east Asia. The last year has seen the tempo of change in southern Africa quicken decisively, bringing the region to the forefront of the world 's attention. The meaningful questions now are not whether fundamental changes will take place, but when they will take place and how they will take place. These questions are clearly related: Fundamental changes will have to be made sooner- very much sooner- if they are to be made comparatively peacefully, and if the whole region is to avoid the incalculable consequences of large-scale outside intervention. Obscuring this fact will serve no one's interest. We recognise the difficulties which have grown with the wasted years, but the future of all the people, both black and white, now depends on making swift and resolute use of the little time remaining. This is why we have supported the process of negotiated change in Zimbabwe and Namibia. This is why, in pursuing a policy of maintaining correct diplomatic relations with South Africa, we have sought to convey very firmly that we not only oppose that regime's policies of racial discrimination without reservation, but we believe its political structure cannot indefinitely sustain the tensions and divisive forces inherent in a system which institutionalises racial inequality. The tragic, and significantly sustained, eruption of violence in Soweto underlines the validity of this message. It is one which it is proper for us to convey and we will continue to do so. For what is happening in southern Africa is significant not only in Africa; it demonstrates in most convincing terms the potency of the racial question in contemporary international politics and it has an important effect on the whole spectrum of Third World-Western relations. I want to make it clear that the Government opposes racism not only in South Africa but wherever it occurs and whoever are its victims. In the African context we find utterly deplorable the racist and tyrannical regime in Uganda. We also bear in mind that, repugnant as it is, racism is by no means the only thing that violates the dignity of men and denies human rights. It is necessary to defend those rights against all forms of attack. This Government has made clear its concern about human rights both publicly and privately on many occasions and in respect of events in many different countries. Furthermore in my speech to the United Nations General Assembly last year I said: We see importance too in the more general re-assertion of the cause of freedom of the person, and the elimination of the indignities which man still heaps upon man, torture, forced labour, discrimination and inequality- to mention but a few. In the Middle East the last year witnessed another tragic episode in an already tragic history: The terrible internecine conflict in Lebanon. Australia has played its part in international efforts to alleviate the human suffering, both through gifts of food and through special immigration arrangements. We hope President Sarkis will make rapid progress in rebuilding the country. I am very pleased that we will be able to re-open our office in Beirut in May. In the meantime the resident Embassy now being established in Damascus will deal with Lebanese migration applications. As well as the Embassy in Syria, we have recently established one in Iraq, where an Ambassador takes charge this month. These moves to strengthen our representation testify to our recognition of the growing economic and political importance of the region. On the central Arab-Israel dispute, the coming year will see a renewed effort towards settlement, and together with most other states we welcome this and trust that it will be pressed with the utmost determination. In the meantime, we have been glad to contribute to the United Nations peacekeeping effort for the Middle East. At the request of the United Nations Secretary-General, Australia deployed 4 Royal Australian Air Force helicopters with their crews and maintenance staff to the UN emergency force in the Sinai in July last year. Australia has lent its support to United Nations resolutions 242 of 1967 and 338 of 1973, seeing them as giving absolute recognition to the right of Israel to survive as a nation, and as also recognising the need for Israel to withdraw from occupied territories. One change in the situation since 1967 is that the Palestine problem has come to be seen generally as not merely an issue of refugees, but of the need for any settlement to take account of the legitimate rights of the Palestine people. Proposals are now being advanced from the Arab side relating to the setting up of a Palestinian state on territory to be vacated by Israel on the West Bank of the Jordan and in Gaza. It is an entirely legitimate concern in Israel that whatever entity is in control of these territories should live in peace with its neighbours, and abjure threats or acts of force, as required by resolution 242. This cannot be said of the long established platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and so long as the PLO cannot be seen to have abandoned its earlier written rejection of Israel's right to exist, the road to peace will be blocked. A reciprocal proposition is that recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people will also require action by Israel in one form or another. If, as a result of negotiations, there is agreement on the establishment of a Palestinian homeland alongside Israel, this will have Australian support. All this is a matter for negotiation among the parties directly concerned. Because the interests of four great powers intersect in north east Asia and because of the hostility that exists between the 2 states into which it is divided, the Korean peninsula inevitably constitutes one of the principal danger points in international politics. Our concern is to reduce the level of friction which exists, to encourage any new initiative which will enhance stability, and to foster an atmosphere in which constructive negotiation can take place. We welcomed the fact that in 1976, at the wish of both the Korean governments, the prospect of another sterile debate at the United Nations was averted. We hope that a means acceptable to both sides can be found, outside the United Nations context, of reducing the emphasis upon the military aspect of the confrontation. Until this happens the Government believes that the sensitivity of the situation is such that any step which will substantially affect the status quo should be approached with great caution and preceded by thorough consultation. In foreshadowing its intention to withdraw its ground forces from the Republic of Korea over a period of years, the new United States Administration has made it clear that it fully recognises this. 206 Throughout this statement, I have stressed how an awareness of change pervades and shapes the Government's foreign policy. In the last part of it, I turn to look directly at the implications for Australia of the emergence of what have come to be known, rightly, as 'The Global Issues'. This Government came to office fully seized of the importance of these global issues. In our policy statement prior to the elections, we recognised that they presented Australia with its greatest test of statesmanship in foreign policy. In his statement on the world situation last June, the Prime Minister spoke at length about these problems, in terms that dispelled any complacency about the record of the developed countries and recognised the need for a farsighted response to them, if they were not to create an international atmosphere inimical to Australia's well-being. Subsequently I and other members of the Government have elaborated on this theme. In a speech to the National Press Club last November I spoke at some length on the significance of this 'New Agenda' for Australia. I argued that because of our resources- our role as a food producer, our energy resources, our vast mineral resourcesand our position as a trading nation, it is bound to enhance our importance. This in turn will mean not only that our bargaining power will increase, but that we will almost certainly be subjected to more demands and pressures- not only from the Third World but from other countries which are concerned to find solutions to such questions. These issues are individually important, many of them vitally so, and they are even more important in their collective cumulative impact. They are important in the short run and going to be even more so in the longer run. They are important in terms of the substantive matters they raise and they are important politically. In one way or another they will affect our relationships with most other countries- the 120 or so states which now constitute the Third World, as well as the Great Powers. For at least the next decade, we will still be a sparsely-populated, and richly-endowed country in a world which is going to be increasingly overcrowded, short of food, energy and other essentials, and seized of the importance of how the world's resources are distributed and utilised. This is not an empty cliche. It points to the heart of Australia's foreign policy problem over the coming years. We had better address ourselves to it because it will certainly address itself to us. Those who think that it is a realistic approach to stand pat, to wait and see, to conduct business as usual, are seriously under-estimating the dynamics of the situation. In many areas the time for decision is rapidly approaching. I will give some specific examples. First, the stage reached in the deliberations of the Law of the Sea Conference, and the declaration of a number of other states on the matter, mean that Australia will soon have to make a decision on the question of a 200-mile economic zone. This concept, which has developed over the last decade, involves giving to coastal states jurisdiction over the living and non-living resources of the sea and seabed up to 200 miles from the coast. For Australia, with its enormously long coastline, it is a development of a unique and unprecedented order of magnitude. A decision to declare an economic zone will confront us with a series of vital decisions- in terms of developing a capacity to exploit what we have claimed; the kinds of agreement we will need to enter into with others concerning the zone; our responsibilities in terms of resource-sharing; and the problem of surveillance. But the matter is an urgent one, involving responsibilities both to the Australian people and to the community of nations. The Government is giving it the most careful consideration. The Law of the Sea Conference has not yet concluded its work. Whether it succeeds or fails remains to be seen. There is at present a deep division of opinion between the developed states and the Third World states, particularly over the question of an international regime of the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. More generally, up to this point the Conference has been characterised by an absence of the political will and determination necessary to find an agreed solution. If this trend continues, it is likely that there will be a breakdown and this will nave the most serious consequences. For our part, we are determined to do everything to avoid a breakdown. Our delegation has been playing a valuable and well regarded mediatory role. Between now and the next session of the Conference in May we will do nothing which might prejudice its success. Second, and in important ways connected to the Law of the Sea Conference, is the future of Antarctica and its resources. As the Australian Antarctic Territory comprises about threesevenths of the entire Antarctic land mass, this is a matter of great concern to us. It will be considered by the Antarctic Treaty consultative powers at their next meeting in October of this year. The questions involved are enormously complex involving living and non-living resources, environmental issues, defence and strategic questions, access and sovereignty. It is an issue on which the defining of the national interest in realistic and enlightened terms- terms which recognise the potential importance of Antarctica to the whole of mankind- is a major and urgent task. It is now being undertaken. Third, Australia is being asked to play a major role in the resettlement of refugees from the all too many areas of conflict and disruption around the world. Over the past year the Government has responded to many such situations, for instance in the Lebanon, Indo-China and Latin America. It is presently engaged in arranging reunion of East Timorese evacuees in Australia with their close relatives in East Timor and elsewhere. The Government recognises that refugeetype situations will continue to arise and that Australia, because of its size, resources, existing level of population and general capacity to resettle refugees will continue to be seen as a major refugee resettlement country. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) will be making a detailed statement on our refugee policy and proposed new mechanisms in the near future. Fourth, in the field of international trade, the difficulties of developing countries, apart from most oil exporting nations, are serious and immediate. In the past 20 years, their share of world trade has declined sharply. They have faced a situation of erratic change in their terms of trade. Extreme fluctuations in their export earnings have added formidably to the task of planning economic growth. Against this background, and in the name of equity and justice, the developing countries are pressing hard for adjustments to the international economic system. Proposals for the restructuring of international commodity trade, for the improvement of market access arrangements, for the alleviation of international debts, and for the sharing of technologies are now on the table. Detailed negotiations are now proceeding within the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the Conference on International Economic Cooperation (CIEC) and the Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTNs). These negotiations are technical and complex for the layman but their outcome will ultimately affect us all. Acceptance of the proposals advanced by the Third World countries would have far-reaching consequences for the growth and direction of world trade. Equally, rejection, or a failure to achieve any measure of consensus, would be a source of instability and conflict. An assessment of whether the proposals are realistic and appropriate both to the needs of the developing countries and the capacities of the developed countries is currently proceeding. Australia, as an important trading nation with a vital stake in the international trading system, has a legitimate and serious interest in the outcome. The Government fully recognises the need to be sensitive, positive and constructive as far as the difficulties of the developing countries are concerned. It also recognises the need to be realistic and pragmatic in terms of what the system will bear, and of our own interests, interpreted broadly, in political as well as economic terms. Finding the appropriate balance between these considerations is a problem we share with most other countries, and is not one that can be set aside. Fifth, and perhaps most urgent of all, along with every other country, Australia has a vital interest in how nuclear power is developed and utilised in the near future. I say 'the near future', for it seems clear that time is of the essence in this matter. Apart from the interest it shares with the rest of mankind, Australia has a particular interest and responsibility because it controls a sizeable part of the world s resources of uranium. The decision regarding the export of these resources will not be made in advance of the final Ranger inquiry report. But the Government would be remiss if it did not address itself to the general questions of nuclear development and safeguards in the meantime, for these are vital matters in any event. The Government regards it as imperative that peaceful nuclear energy development takes place- and it seems inevitable that it will take place- under an effective international regime. We attach the greatest importance to the NonProliferation Treaty and will abide strictly by its provisions. We attach the greatest importance to the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime, reducing distinctions between nuclear 'haves' and 'have nots', and between developed and developing countries. We believe that adherence to the Treaty needs to be made more attractive to non-nuclear states, by balancing new and tightened safeguards with rational incentives for the self-denial of a weapons option. It is clear that other countries will continue to rely to an increasing extent on nuclear-generated electric power for their energy requirements. This trend to a greater reliance on nuclear energy abroad will occur whether or not Australia becomes a large-scale exporter of uranium. At the same time, the maintenance and improvement of an effective international nuclear safeguards regime will continue. Australia's contribution to ensure effective international nuclear safeguards must surely be much greater if we accept positively the responsibility which we have to the international community as a major world supplier of uranium. While it awaits the final report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, the Government has conducted a most thorough preliminary investigation on the whole question of nuclear safeguards, both as they apply in Australia itself and overseas. If Australia does become a major exporter of uranium, she will do so with a comprehensive and stringent national policy on the safeguards to apply to her exports. We recognise fully the nexus between the prospects of horizontal non-proliferation- the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons to more countries- and the prospects of vertical non-proliferation- the placing of curbs on existing nuclear arsenals. There is an inescapable connection between the two. The outcome of the SALT negotiations later this year will go far to determine not only the future balance between the United States and the Soviet Union, but also the prospects of non-proliferation for the rest of this century. We take hope from the fact that President Carter clearly recognises this and the imperative need for the super powers to reach agreement on stabilising, and ultimately reducing, their nuclear armaments. I have said something about these 5 issuesand I could easily have extended the list with references to food, the control of conventional arms sales, and many others because they make it clear that as far as Australia is concerned decisions on many of the global problems are not ones that can be postponed to an indefinite future. They will have to be made in this decade if they are not simply to be made by events. Even if they are made successfully, there will be others to follow them. The population of the world cannot double in 30 years without producing problems of unprecedented complexity and dimensions. Apart from their specific content they are bound to raise general questions about the way we conduct our foreign relations. We shall have to give increasing attention to the question of ensuring adequate access to international deliberations in a world increasingly characterised by a system of groups and the organisation of international negotiations in terms of group representation. I refer, of course, to such entities as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, of which we are a member, the Group of 77, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the Eastern European Countries' Council of Mutual Economic Assistance. It is essential that Australia should not be left in the interstices between these groups. We cannot do this by claiming to be what we are not, in order to gain membership where we do not belong. It will involve patiently pressing our case for representation in new forums. It will involve strengthening our bilateral relations with countries in all groups and it will involve ensuring that we make full and energetic use of those forums to which we do have access. In this last respect I want to make special reference to the Commonwealth and the United Nations. Not too long ago the Commonwealth was a centre-piece in Australia's foreign policy. In recent years it has been given somewhat less prominence, partly because our relationships have become more diverse, but partly also because, historically, the Australian approach to the Commonwealth was largely a function of the importance attached to our connection with Britain, but as her interest east of Suez declined and her commitment to Europe increased, it was inevitable that Australia's attitude towards the Commonwealth should be affected. But the time is ripe for a reassessment of its significance for our foreign policy. After all, a north-south dialogue has been going on in the framework of the Commonwealth for a long time, however novel it is elsewhere. The Commonwealth is an old multi-racial forum, and the accumulated experience of its members is great. It is an international organisation which is not overshadowed by the presence of great powers and, lastly, there are many other Commonwealth members in regions adjacent to us- in South East Asia and the South Pacific. For all these very sound reasons the Government believes that Australia should attend more actively to the responsibility of its Commonwealth role- both globally and regionally. That is why the Prime Minister has invited a number of Prime Ministers of Commonwealth countries in the Pacific to Canberra for talks prior to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, to be held in London in June. These will supplement the talks which the Prime Minister and I have had and will have with the Prime Ministers of Papua New Guinea, Singapore and Malaysia against the same background. The Prime Minister will attend the London Conference with the positive approach indicated by these preparatory steps. The importance of the United Nations derives from its comprehensiveness. It is the only international meeting place at which virtually all countries are represented. Despite its imperfectionsand, from different points of view, all members acknowledge that these exist- this ensures its indispensibility. The growth and change of the United Nations over the years have reflected- for better and for worse- the growth and change which have occurred in the world around it. Australia was one of the 51 founding members. There are now 147 members. In the United Nations our electoral grouping is with the so-called WEOG- the West European and Others Group. We also have a pattern of consultation with the 'ASF AN plus' Group. And beyond that the United Nations provides our only means of constant and ready contact with close on half the countries of the world. In terms of the need for access, therefore, the United Nations is of great benefit to us. It is important that we do what we can to maintain its authority and effectiveness. We will also have to give increasing attention ensuring coherence and co-ordination in our policy. The days when foreign policy was something relatively self-contained are over. The distinctions between domestic and foreign, economic and political, are becoming increasingly blurred. We will have to devise more flexible and integrated methods of decision-making if traditional boundaries and conventional jurisdictions are not to lead to overlapping, inconsistencies and missed opportunities. It is not only a matter of problems. Australia is also presented with opportunities by many of these changes, for they enhance the importance of what we possess. How we respond to these opportunities will determine not only how securely and comfortably we will live in a changing world, but also what kind of a country Australia will become. The goals of our foreign policy in this changing world are ambitious ones. Their pursuit will take patience and persistence and require the skilful use of our nation's resources. I present the following paper: Foreign Policy- Ministerial Statement, IS March 1977. Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. 210 Motion (by Mr Sinclair)- by leave- agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period not exceeding 60 minutes. Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m. 210 6U4 Werriwa ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr E G WHITLAM - One must feel a certain sympathy, however undeserved, for our unfortunate Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock). For more than an hour before the suspension of the sitting for dinner he regaled the House with a tortuous justification of the Fraser Government's foreign policy. 210 K9J ALP 0 0 JOHNSON, Leonard Mr Keith Johnson - What foreign policy , 210 6U4 ALP 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr E G Whitlam -Indeed. It is the policy, in fact, of Mr Fraser himself whose name the Minister invoked 16 times- once every 4 minutes. Yet scarcely was the ink dry on the departmental draft of the speech than the President of the United States of America overturned one of the basic assumptions of the Liberal Government's policy. The Minister's speech was irrelevant and outdated before it was given. It will commemorate yet another of the calamitous misjudgments and spectacular follies of the Fraser Government's foreign policy- an area in which it is every bit as wrong-headed and clumsy as it is in domestic matters and economic management. The commitment by President Carter last week to the demilitarisation of the Indian Ocean demolished the last remnants of coherence or credibility in Liberal foreign policy. How revealing it is that the Indian Ocean- this central question in our foreign policy; the basis of so much Liberal rhetoric and ranting last year- is dismissed in 2 brief paragraphs of the Minister's speech. As far as the Indian Ocean is concerned the Government just does not want to know. The focus of its thinking and ambitions a year ago is now dismissed. And no wonder. President Carter's statement delivered the coup de grace to the Prime Minister's red-baiting and militarism in foreign affairs as effectively and conclusively as devaluation destroyed his reputation for financial management. If there is one event in the past week of lasting significance in the record of Australian foreign policy, it is not the speech tonight from the Foreign Minister but the remarks last week from the President of the United States. With that statement in Washington the basis of the Liberals' foreign policy since 1975 was destroyed. The dregs of a generation of scare tactics and fear-mongering finally went down the drain. The Liberals were once again left flatfooted and floundering on a key issue of foreign policy- the future stability and safety of the Indian Ocean and its neighbouring states. As with Suez, as with China, as with Vietnam, as with the aftermath of Vietnam, the Liberals were exposed as not only wrong but wrong in a way that compromised and embarrassed our allies. For the Government's humiliation is not just in the collapse of one of its favourite delusions: That was always on the cards, and indeed the falsity of its position has been clear enough from the beginning. The humiliation lies in the rejection of its policy by the United States. It was an essential part of the Fraser Government's policy not merely to establish a threat, but to persuade the United States of a threat. For the poliCY to succeed the United States had to share the Prime Minister's phobia. It had to commit men and resources to an arms build-up in the Indian Ocean, endanger its relations with other Indian Ocean states and compromise its whole policy of international detente. That was difficult enough in the Ford and Kissinger era; it has proved impossible under the Carter Administration. For the Fraser policy to succeed the Americans had to play ball. They refused. It was easy enough in the 1950s and 1960s for the Liberals to base their foreign policy on Australian subservience to the United States; it is somewhat more difficult in the 1970s to base a foreign policy on American subservience to Australia. What is now in question, is whether there is any longer any basis of agreement, let alone trust, between the Australian and American governments on the military and strategic realities of our region. The red scare in the Indian Ocean was the Prime Minister's reponse to peace in IndoChina. It was the new communist threat to replace the one that disappeared in April 1975. It was cultivated assiduously by the Prime Minister in the early months of last year, with fitful assistance from the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). 211 4U4 0 0 KILLEN, James Mr Killen - You have hurt my feelings. 211 6U4 ALP 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr E G Whitlam - I loved that cartoon in the Age where you and the Prime Ministernever so close as the cartoon depicted you- were in the one rowing boat in a little pond named the Indian Ocean from which the plug had just been pulled out. It was not a very sunny Sunday afternoon for you last weekend. I wish you would not interject; this is a serious matter. But the red threat is only credible if other nations are willing to take it seriously. Despite the Prime Minister's obsession with Soviet ships and all his efforts to inflate their importance other nations were unmoved. The Commonwealth, half of whose members are island, hinterland or littoral states of the Indian Ocean, would have none of it. The Commonwealth reaffirmed its belief that the Indian Ocean should remain an area of peace and stability and expressed its concern at military bases in the region- a united resolution by all 3 dozen members of the Commonwealth at their last summit meeting. The United Nations would have none of it. The resolutions of the General Assembly have all favoured a neutral zone in the Indian Ocean. In spite of abundant expert evidence and the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, the Fraser Government persisted with its obsessions about militarisation of the Indian Ocean. They have now been rejected by the United States itself. No amount of talk about a 'military balance' will mask the fact that once again the Australian conservatives have been caught with their pants down. Australian Liberal Governments in the 1960s strove at all costs to have United States forces committed to the mainland of Asia. The present Liberal Government has done all it can to have U.S. forces committed to the Indian Ocean. It will not succeed. And all its importuning, its pleading and its cajoling will embarrass the United States and compromise our relations, just as Liberal policy towards South East Asia encouraged the Americans on their foolish and tragic adventure there. Responsible Americans no longer place much reliance on the scaremongering and red-baiting of Australian conservative politicians. There were always deep divisions in the American Administration and Congress on Indo-China. There has always been a healthy scepticism in the United States about the real nature of Soviet military activity, or any other military activity, in the Indian Ocean. The U.S. Administration has now taken an initiative to demilitarise the region- not just to adjust 'the balance', but to remove it. The Liberals have been caught short on this occasion just as they were with Dr Kissinger's initiative on China in 1971. They were certainly not told of the decision in advance; such is the confidence of the new American Administration in the Fraser Government's conduct of international relations and its notorious record of official leaks. Mr Creighton Burns wrote in the Age yesterday: The fact that Australia was not consulted on the new Carter Indian Ocean policy before the President declared it suggests that consultations between the Carter and Fraser Administrations are, so far, anything but close- and certainly no closer than they were between previous American Administrations and Australian Governments, both Liberal and Labor. The Liberals' latest variation on the Russian threat is that the Soviet Union now poses 3 threats: In their strategic nuclear capability, their naval power, and their conventional land forces. One can refute these claims with figures and counter-assertions. But for the sake of brevity and simplicity, I will allow the former American Secretary of State, Dr Kissinger, to make nonsense of the Minister's scenario. On strategic nuclear power, Dr Kissinger said in the Alastair Buchan Memorial Lecture in London on 25 June last year: United States strategic forces are superior in accuracy, diversity, reliability, survivability and numbers of separately targetable nuclear warheads. We have a commanding lead in strategic bombers . . . The economic and technological base which underlies Western military strength remains overwhelmingly superior in size and capacity for innovation. Of the Soviet Union's naval strength, the former Secretary of State said this: Its naval power is far weaker than combined Allied naval strength in terms of tonnage, firepower, range, access to the sea, experience and seamanship. The Foreign Minister's fears of Soviet land forces were answered by Dr Kissinger on 22 March last year in a speech in Dallas. He said: There is nothing new about the size of the Soviet army. During the entire postwar period, the Soviet standing army has always been larger than ours; at times it has been three times the size. The Soviet Union has a much greater landmass to defend, and perceives major defence problems both in Eastern Europe and on the Asian front, where nearly half of the Soviet army is now stationed. So much for the Minister's assertion this afternoon that 'the balance of informed Western opinion has strongly confirmed what the Prime Minister said'. Dr Kissinger added a warning which might almost have been directed to the Fraser Government. He said: Complacency may produce weakness; but exaggeration of danger can lead to a loss of will. I urge honourable members opposite to take that text to heart. The great difficulty with this statement and any statement by the Foreign Minister is to know how much of it is his Department's work, or even his own, and how much is coloured by the dark obsessions of the Prime Minister. Behind the trendy pretensions of the honourable member for Kooyong lurk the grim visions and neurotic hangups of his master. The conflict has been apparent since the Liberals published the coalition's foreign policy platform in October 1975. 212 4U4 0 0 KILLEN, James Mr Killen - You will hurt his feelings. 212 6U4 ALP 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr E G Whitlam - I knew the Minister would enjoy it. The blush even shows through the sun lamp tan. The coalition's foreign policy platform was the product of months of fruitless labour by the present Foreign Minister. He submitted 5 drafts of the platform to his leader. They were all rejected. The final document was laced with the references to Munich and the Prime Minister's definition of military power as 'the main arbiter in international affairs'. It proclaimed that 'conflicts and threats are inherent in a world of sovereign states'. If we could only all go back to being colonies! It stated that Australia should never be diverted from building military alliances by 'the facile demand to identify the threat'. In other words, the Prime Minister's foreign policy was not to be complicated by facts. From this it is but a short step to saying that if no threat to Australia exists it is necessary to invent one. No one was to deny the Prime Minister the comforts of his fearful, simplistic and paranoid view of the world. It is all a far cry from trite banalities and moderate glosses in the Minister's latest statement. We know that for every slow and grudging shift towards moderation and sanity in foreign policy by the Liberals, the Prime Minister himself is still wedded to the old hard line. We know that in all his overseas visits and disastrous foreign forays last year the Prime Minister clung to his pessimistic view of a world teeming with threats and bogeymen. He went to Peking in June 1976 in search of an audience for his fears about the Soviet Union. His half-baked proposal for an alliance between Australia, China, Japan and the United States was rejected out of hand. When subsequently he suggested to the Soviet Ambassador that he should be invited to Moscow, presumably to repair some of the damage he had done to Australia-Soviet relations he got short shrift again. On 27 September he delivered the Roy Milne lecture on Australian foreign policy in Sydney. He lamented the ugly tendency in the world to emphasise co-operation between countries in place of the healthy recognition of inherent sources of conflict. He warned Australia's neighbours that any move towards a new international economic order would be slow and cautious. He declared it an illusion for developing countries to believe that there can be any significant redistribution of the world's income. That was heartening news for the hundreds of millions of our near neighbours who aspire, above all else, to an improvement in their standard of living. They now have it from the Australian Prime Minister that their highest and most cherished aspirations are impractical and hopeless- an illusion. Yet 2 days later, in New York on 20 September, the Foreign Minister told the United Nations General Assembly: Primacy must be accorded to economic questions . . . They present the developed and developing worlds with a crucial challenge in international cooperation . . . Australia will contribute willingly to the building of a stable and just international structure and we will work for changes in the world's economic system that are practical and viable. Fine words, but flatly contradicted by the Prime Minister. We can only conclude that either the Foreign Minister disagreed with the views of his leader expressed 2 days previously, or more probably, had not been told of them. Whom do we believe? Who really speaks for the Liberals? Even when the Foreign Minister ventures forth along a trendy path, with or without his master's approval, he is still several years behind the rest of the world. In an address to the National Press Club in November he brought himself to acknowledge the existence of the Third World. He proclaimed: . . . the arrival of those states variously referred to as the Third World, under-developed countries or 'the south' ... as effective actors on the international scene. I can remember when my Government's interest in the Third World was condemned by the Liberals as close to subversion and treachery. The truth is that the great debate on the future of the Third World, the economies of the developing nations and the need for a new economic order is already 4 years old. It is 4 years since the oil exporting countries asserted the right of developing countries to participate equitably in world economic relations. It is 7 years since the United Nations adopted the strategy for the second development decade and set the universal aid target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product. The Foreign Minister's statements merely serve to remind us that in every area of foreign policy the Liberals have been asleep for the past quarter of a century. Australia's conservatives have an uncanny and unfailing ability to ignore events that threaten to disturb their ideological slumbers. The Prime Minister's latest excursion into diplomacy took place last month when he visited Port Moresby for the first time in a long parliamentary career. 213 MI4 0 0 PEACOCK, Andrew Mr Peacock - That is not so. He was at the Independence Day celebrations with you. 213 6U4 ALP 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr E G Whitlam - I know. He was there for one day- his first visit. The Minister is quite right. The Prime Minister was there on 16 September 1975. Liberal Prime Ministers always visit Papua New Guinea in their last year. The communique was an eloquent testimony to the failure of his mission. The Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea indicated that his country was committed to the establishment of zones of peace and neutrality in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The Australian Prime Minister told Mr Somare that he would not agree to those proposals. Once again his obsessions with power precluded any basis for constructive and peaceful co-operation in the region. On the other 2 issues of supreme importance between Australia and Papua New Guinea the Prime Minister rode roughshod over the concerns of our closest neighbour. He repeated his uncompromising and meaningless attitude towards a new international economic order and he deferred consideration of the question of the border between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Even though the Papua New Guinea Parliament had exercised its right to adopt its own limits of sea and seabed jurisdiction the Prime Minister was unable to come to any agreement with Mr Somare. He spoke instead of 'difficulties' within Australia, and thus demonstrated that he has no confidence in his own ability to exercise the external affairs power given to the Federal Parliament in the Australian Constitution. The same techniques were employed in Indonesia during the Prime Minister's visit to Jakarta in October. As in Port Moresby, the communique showed a complete gulf between the views of the Prime Minister and President Suharto on the Indian Ocean. In the communique President Suharto expressed his belief that there would be no problem with respect to possible domination of the Indian Ocean by any great power if the great powers and other major maritime countries observed the United National General Assembly resolutions declaring the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace. It was a clear appeal to the Australian Prime Minister to drop his infatuation with a military build up in the Indian Ocean. Our Prime Minister would do no such thing. He thus placed Australia in opposition to a decision of the United Nations and the Commonwealth and fundamental interest of its largest neighbour. Official circles in Jakarta are still stinging from the Prime Minister's remarks in Peking "about the nature of the Indonesian regime". Jakarta has never seen faster footwork from Australian diplomatists than that required after the Prime Minister's visit to Peking. The Government's ham-fisted attempts to bring Australia into co-operation with the Association of South East Asian Nations have been resented by ASEAN members, including Indonesia. In January 1976 the Prime Minister took the opportunity presented by his attendance at the funeral of Tun Abdul Razak to seek an invitation to attend the ASEAN summit meeting as an observer. His request caused severe embarrassment to the ASEAN countries and to other regional countries such as Japan and New Zealand. Predictably it was denied. The Prime Minister, however, pushed on with a statement that Australia wanted closer political links with ASEAN. The Prime Minister was subsequently unable to explain to ASEAN leaders exactly what he had in mind. In July 1976 ASEAN even rejected the Fraser Government's proposal for an ASEAN-Australia trade committee. The reason was not that the proposal was unacceptable in principle, but rather that the coalition Government had shown no willingness to consider any adjustment to Australia's trade barriers. The Fraser Government has subsequently struggled through countless draft Cabinet submissions on Australian-ASEAN relations. It refuses to accept that all its rhetoric about good relations with Asia is meaningless unless Australia is prepared to make trading arrangements based on mutual interest and a recognition of the special economic needs of the countries of the region. The Government has been niggardly and devious in the matter of foreign aid. Last November the Foreign Minister promised aid to the countries of the South Pacific to the value of $60m over the 3 financial years commencing last July and a special grant of half a million dollars to voluntary agencies in the Pacific over the same period. Last week I asked him about Press reports that decisions to reduce that aid had been taken in secret. In his reply the Minister revealed that the voluntary agencies will now receive not one cent in the first financial year, the present one, and that the aid to them will again cut out through the second half of 1978. How can voluntary agencies effectively plan under such fits and starts in government subsidies? The Foreign Minister also asserted that the Fraser government had increased the aid to South Pacific countries by 400 per cent over the payments made by the Labor Government. The more revealing fact is that when Labor took office that aid had been a mere Sl.lm. We increased the figure immediately by 100 per cent. The total increase made by Labor in bilateral aid to the countries of the South Pacific from 1972 to 1975 represented an increase of 400 per cent over the level of aid we inherited. The Fraser Government has been equally mean in its overall foreign aid program. My Government increased foreign aid by 35 per cent between 1972 and 1975. We were moving towards the internationally agreed target figure of 0.7 per cent of gross national product. Under the Hayden Budget, 0.53 per cent of Australia's national product would have been expended on overseas aid. Reductions and deferments announced in February last year reduced this expenditure to 0.5 per cent last year. Under the Lynch Budget 0.49 per cent has been allocated. This rejection, this diminution of responsibility cannot be explained to our neighbours. Such actions destroy out international credibility. Measured against the government's rhetoric they are a cause of bitter cynicism towards Australia and its people. We all know the old saying that governments do not win elections on foreign policy. We know that the people of the South Pacific have no vote in the Australian electorate. But there are no adequate reasons for the destruction of Australia's international standing and credit. The Foreign Minister cannot talk about a new agenda in foreign policy and an enhanced Australian moral commitment to international relations while continuing to play his part in this mean and deceptive behaviour. What is the record of the Fraser Government on Japan? For years the Liberals saw Japan as no more than a market for our minerals. Australia's relations with Japan were cast in a strictly commercial mould. The Fraser Government has now concluded a reduced version of the Labor Government's proposed basic treaty with Japan and the associated Australia- Japan Foundation. But relations with Japan have deteriorated. Without consultation with the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has threatened Japan with a commodities war. We all know that the Minister for Primary Industry aspires to be Foreign Minister and is so desperate for this promotion that he has considered changing his Party label. 214 JNO 0 0 BAILLIEU, Marshall Mr Baillieu - Your mob claim he should be Treasurer. 214 6U4 ALP 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr E G Whitlam - I can understand the protests from the Government benches at any such prospect, but his ambitions are not diminished. For the good of this country we hope the Minister for Primary Industry does not succeed in his rush to become Mr Fraser 's John Connally. Whenever he has chosen to speak on foreign affairs he has betrayed his reactionary, colonialist and potentially racist attitudes. In his threat to withhold fishing rights from the Japanese he was reviving a recurrent Australian nightmare. How often have we heard extremist groups in Australia argue that Australia must acquire nuclear weapons, supply Japan with raw materials at pitifully low prices, to stave off the ultimate prospect of invasion by the Japanese? The Deputy Prime Minister revived this xenophobic bogy in a speech just a year ago. The Minister for Primary Industry's threat in the context of beef and fishing relations was hostile and ignorant. It took no account of the whole range of international agreements, such as those under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, designed to ensure good trading relations between countries. Relations with Japan are an area in which Australia desperately needs a strong Foreign Minister and sophisticated and sensible diplomacy. The Prime Minister's ramblings in Peking about a 4-power relationship were made in utter ignorance of the sensitivity that exists between China and Japan over the question of a peace treaty between those 2 countries. There must be deep concern at the way the Fraser Government has sought to conduct our relationship with China. No attempt has been made to build it upon this relationship, to give it substance or to foster the links implicit in recognition. Our relations with China demand clarity and effort. They are a permanent historic reality and must be developed. The process must be open and creative. The ideological obsessions of the coalition parties are manifestly counterproductive to this goal. Similarly, the Government's attitude towards the Soviet Union has been nothing short of disastrous. There can be no doubting the reservations held by a great number of Australians about elements of Soviet policy. But any policy which fails to recognise the importance of the Soviet Union and the need for Australia to maintain a good relationship with it is worthless. The coalition's attitudes towards the Soviet Union, while designed to advance what it sees as its basic political interest, have posed a considerable threat to Australia's interests. It is significant that the policy attitudes towards the Soviet Union already outlined by President Carter are flatly opposed to those of the Soviet Union. Rather than providing security in our relations with the Soviet Union the Fraser Government's policies have threatened it. Its views are rejected by every regional country. Australia's relations with Western Europe were neglected for 2 decades by the coalition parties. As successive Conservative and Labor governments in London sought to take Britain into Europe, the only response from conservatives in Australia was one of hostility- a siege mentality. Those governments in Australia did their best to subvert and frustrate Britain's entry into the Common Market. It had been sought by Conservative governments, Labour, Conservative and Labour again. It had been quite clear since 1962 that British governments from both sides of politics were determined that Britain should enter the Common Market. For a decade Liberal and Country Party Ministers in Australia did their best to frustrate the efforts of successive British governments and to alienate the Common Market. In 1974, when the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) and I took a mission to Europe for the first time since the Treaty of Rome was signed, we went straight to Brussels, the European capital. The message was realised in every member country of the Common Market. We opened up for the first time serious relations with the new European communities. Those relations must now be promoted and nurtured. The coalition must not allow the National Country Party to determine its view of the European communities. It must stop seeing the communities as an inherent threat to Australia's interests and instead seek new and extended areas of cooperation in trade and technology. In this context the Government's rejection of Labor's proposal that it should seek to conclude a framework agreement for commercial and economic cooperation between the European communities and Australia, such as Canada obtained in the middle of last year, must end. It is absurd but typical that the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) has stated in this House that he does not see 'the advantage to Australia in such an agreement'. He of course remains rooted in the outdated view of Europe as a dumping ground for Australian agricultural products. The coalition parties have consistently failed to recognise that the only viable policy for Australia towards the Middle East is one of evenhandedness. Their off-handed 'appreciation' of the problem faced by the Palestinian people goes nowhere near such a policy. The same weakness on vital questions of justice and race relations is evident in Liberal attitudes to Southern Africa. The Minister for Primary Industry, the aspiring Foreign Minister, in his latest excursion into foreign affairs called on the Commonwealth to strengthen itself by readmitting South Africa and Rhodesia. The Minister could hardly have revealed a more remote understanding of what the Commonwealth is all about. Nor could he be more plainly racist. He is of course supported by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who, on his latest overseas trip, decided to visit Southern Rhodesia and thus broke United Nations resolutions which are binding upon Australia. It is also tragically revealing to see backbench members of the coalition parties, presumably supporters of the Liberal Party right-wing movement, rise repeatedly in this House to denounce the actions of the Czechoslovak Government against that country's intellectuals, but remain silent about the situation in the Republic of Korea and Uganda. The tendency within the coalition towards colonialist and racist understandings of the problems of South Africa remains unabated. 215 BV4 0 0 HODGMAN, Michael Mr Hodgman - Utter rubbish! You are not telling the truth. 215 6U4 ALP 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr E G Whitlam -Listen to Smith's friends. Unless the Fraser Government can move itself into the mainstream of world opinion on this important issue it will continue to damage Australia's international standing, including that with major allies such as the United States. On the question of the United Nations we are once again confronted with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister in basic disagreement. In his statement to the General Assembly, the Foreign Minister referred to the 'moral authority' of the world body and the need for countries to continue to give support to the United Nations lest we 'destroy the effectiveness of the very instrument in which we have declared our faith'. Yet the Prime Minister, in his ruminations about foreign policy last year, warned against placing too much faith in the United Nations. He was simply repeating the stance of the coalition parties' discredited policy document. Wherever Mr Fraser and his Minister are going, it is clear that they are not going there together. For over 20 years Australia had a reputation in the United Nations of being among its most conservative members. It could be relied upon with monotonous regularity to vote with South Africa and the then conservative governments of Portugal and Spain on all political issues of basic concern to the overwhelming majority of members including all Australia's neighbours, without exception. The coming to power of the Labor Government in December 1972 was greeted by United Nations members with immense relief. The prospect we now face is that Australia might slip back into the dwindling reactionary camp and thus bring upon us a new sense of disappointment and disrepute in the world's most important political forum. Disarmament and weapons limitations agreements are more urgent today than ever. There is every chance that progress will now be possible again given the renewed commitment by the Carter Administration. Australia might not be able to play a marked or direct role in these affairs but it can help to set them back if it does not take a positive and co-operative attitude towards international action on them. It is clear from the Government's policy towards the Indian Ocean that there is no ground for optimism about Australia's role under the Fraser Government. The coalition parties have always been hostile to disarmament and the Australian bureaucracy has, as a consequence, given those issues only miniscule attention. This contrasts sharply with the approach of the Canadian Government and bureaucracy during the last 1 5 years. The Fraser Government must make a similar commitment if it is serious about Australia playing a responsible role in the issues which are of major national and international concern. Australia has a particular ability to influence events in a vital and related area-the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the spread of nuclear pollution. Australia's vast uranium resources give it this ability. The Fraser Government sought to distort the recommendations of the first Fox report. Its actions in that context related particularly to the view of mining expressed by the Fox Commission. Equally significant, however, was the Government's failure to give any attention to the enormously significant reference made by the Fox Commission to the problems of the non-proliferation treaty and of international atomic safeguards generally. The Commission states that Australia is uniquely placed to influence the development of the treaty and those safeguards. The Fraser Government shows no willingness whatever to take action in this area and to use that influence. Between usAustralia and Canada- we could have a decisive influence in the world on everybody that has uranium- everybody that seeks to use uranium. The next Labor Government will not hesitate to use Australia's influence and to pool our influence with Canada's. Only if the world's atomic safeguards regime is radically improved will the massive threat of nuclear proliferation be curbed. That development is in the interest of every citizen of the world. It must also be recognised that it would serve Australia's interest m that it could facilitate the peaceful use of our uranium resources. Every advance in foreign policy by the Australian Government, every tiny step forward towards enlightenment and reason by the Liberals, has been due to the pressure and initiatives of the Labor Party and the Labor Government. In every area of foreign policy it is Labor that has led the way and set the pace. If it had not been for a Labor Government the Liberals would still be fretting and agonising about the timing of independence for Papua New Guinea. Australia would still be dithering about whether to recognise China or whether the honourable member for Kooyong should be allowed to visit China as an incognito junior Minister. We would still be trading with Rhodesia and South Africa. We would still, as New Zealand does, be playing South African sporting teams. We would still be voting with the colonialist regimes in the United Nations. We would still be indifferent to Europe and hostile to the Common Market. We would still be lamenting the American withdrawal from Indochina. We would still be regarding Japan as nothing more than a commercial partner. On all these questions the Liberals still have far to go, but at least the Australian people can see and judge the issues more clearly. The real hope, I believe for a progressive and rational foreign policy lies in our future relations with the United States of America. It may well be that the Carter Administration has given Australia a new lease of hope, a new opportunity to cast off the old Liberal fears and obsessions and to start afresh in building new relationships with world powers and new friendships in our region. Is it too much to hope that the old Liberal subservience to the United States will be transformed into a genuine partnership for peace and progress, a mutual commitment to the developing nations and an attack on racism, colonialism, poverty, hunger and oppression wherever they may be found in the world? Let Australia make a start by urging the United States to remove its veto on the admission of Vietnam to the United Nations so that one of the most important countries in South East Asia can take its place in the world today. Let Australia urge the United States to abandon the fiction that Taipei is the capital of China and proceed to normalise relations with Peking. The new United States Government has made it perfectly clear that it does not want sycophantic relationships; it does not want toadies for friends. It wants to deal with countries on a basis of mutual respect. It will chose its friends from among those nations committed to human rights and decency in international relations. The ritual invocation of the ANZUS Treaty as the basis of our friendship is, at last, irrelevant. Indeed it is arguable whether the Treaty any longer means what it did in the past, given the powers that Congress has assumed with respect to a President's ability to take military action. Treaties in any case enshrine a structure of co-operation. The essential point is that no co-operation can exist without understanding. The Labor Government created a new basis for self-respect between Australia and the United States. It is manifestly clear that these are the principles upon which President Carter and his Government want international relations to develop. Let Australia grasp this new opportunity. Let us seize the chance to work in fruitful partnership with the United States for the good of the relationship between us, for the welfare of our region, for the betterment and security of the world community. 217 PD4 Diamond Valley 0 0 BROWN, Neil Mr BROWN -Mr Deputy Speaker,I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 217 PD4 0 0 BROWN, Neil Mr BROWN -Yes. During the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) he remarked: 'Listen to Smith's friends'. In the course of doing so he made an aU-embracing gesture towards the Government side of the House seeking to encompass, as I understood him, myself and a number of other honourable members on this side. I wish to dissociate myself from that observation. I certainly would not regard myself as one of Mr Smith's friends. It was unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition should seek to include everyone on this side of the House. 217 BV4 Denison 0 0 HODGMAN, Michael Mr HODGMAN -Mr Deputy Speaker,I wish to make a personal explanation. 217 10000 0 0 DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -Order! Does the honourable member 'claim to have been misrepresented? 217 BV4 0 0 HODGMAN, Michael Mr HODGMAN - I do. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) did not mention me by name but he referred- 217 10000 0 0 DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -Order! As I think I pointed out in the House recently, the honourable member cannot claim to have been misrepresented in an inference when he has not been mentioned by name. 217 BV4 0 0 HODGMAN, Michael Mr HODGMAN -With respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition identified me. 217 10000 0 0 DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -The honourable member can claim to have been misrepresented only if there has been a direct reference to him in a statement which he thinks is incorrect or if there has been an incorrect comment about what an honourable member has done. 217 BV4 0 0 HODGMAN, Michael Mr HODGMAN -There was definitely a direct reference to me because I am the only member in this chamber who has put motions on the notice paper with respect to Czechoslovakia. 217 10000 0 0 DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - I am afraid the honourable member cannot claim personal misrepresentation in this instance. It has been pointed out that no honourable member can claim to have been misrepresented following an inference or even a general allusion, otherwise we would spend all day deciding whether accusations referred to a particular member or a particular question. It would place the Chair in an impossible position. 217 1V5 Kennedy 0 0 KATTER, Bob Mr KATTER -I have had the questionable privilege of being in this House for nearly 1 1 years. I have seen and heard performances in this House which have had a lesser or greater element of hypocrisy, but I must say that I have never had such a sickening serving of hypocritical humbug as we have heard from the - 218 10000 0 0 DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER -Order! The honourable member for Kennedy in his opening remarks said how long he had been in the House. I think he knows that it would be far more beneficial for all concerned if he did not continue his speech along the present lines. I suggest that he change the remarks that he made. 218 1V5 0 0 KATTER, Bob Mr KATTER -Perhaps I should speak in the past tense. The matter I refer to is the reference by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) to the recent statement by President Carter. If one did not know the historical background of the Leader of the Opposition and those who sit behind him and their attitude towards the United States of America, one would presume that quite suddenly there was emerging a great admiration for the United States of America. The sole purpose of the Leader of the Opposition's comments was to exaggerate a statement made by President Carter to give the impression that there had gone out a great call: 'Abandon the Indian Ocean; we want no further part of it'. But whatever be the comment, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made it quite clear last week and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) in a very precise and clear manner today made it perfectly evident that we are evaluating the strategic situation in the Indian Ocean in a certain manner, and so do we act. There has been a contrast here tonight between the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who have shown a sense of responsibility towards the vigilance, defence and security of this nation, and the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who grossly misrepresented and over-exaggerated a statement by the President of the United States of America which honourable members opposite interpreted as being an advantage to their great friends, their Marxist allies. The damage, the desolation and the despair injected into the national life of this nation by the previous Government reached its catastrophic climax when in 3 short years the relations with most valuable allies and friends such as the Americans, the British and the Japanese were reduced to shambles while a cringing, subservient attitude was adopted towards countries whose main claim to achievement was the adoption of a second-rate Marxist regime. So one might well wonder why the architect of this disaster should be leading this debate for the Opposition. One might be forgiven for thinking that this might be an effort to make a farewell contribution in a debate in which, one observes, another participant will be the Queensland contender for the position of Leader of the Oppositionthe Gunsynd of the Labor Party- the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). If past performances in diplomacy, democracy and foreign affairs are remembered by the Australian people, then they could well shudder at the awful prospect of either of these people speaking for the nation. I should like to talk for a moment on China. I do so because it has a very direct bearing on the question of strategy in the Indian Ocean. This afternoon the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when he presented his splendid statement, said: As one aspect of our policy has been to strengthen relations with the major democracies, another has been to place our relations with the major communist countries on a more pragmatic, less ideological basis. Now let us examine some aspects of China's role as a super power and consider our pragmatic relationship with that country. It has always been considered that a China-Pakistan-Iran axis could be in the making. I submit that this development remains a real possibility while the intrusion of Communist Chinese influence into the Arab and African spheres has clearly diminished. Let us examine briefly what might be described as a bare outline of China's foreign power: Good relations with the United States of America and Japan; a sympathetic attitude towards Pakistan but not towards Bangladesh; a low-key, noncommittal approach to Taiwan; an unobtrusive and possibly non-involvement posture in SouthEast Asia; and of course a continued deep set and vocal mistrust of the Soviet Union. Behind all external and internal major political strategy in China looms the capability or the potential for armed conflict with Russia, and the constant related question of Chinese and Soviet influence in neighbouring regions. So in this context we must consider Australia's vital interest in global and regional security. I mentioned a little earlier the possibility of a China-Pakistan-Iran axis. This in itself could create a contest for influence between the Soviet Union and China, in an area running in an arc from Japan, through South East Asia and the Indian sub-continent to the Arabian Gulf. Not for a moment will China tolerate Soviet ascendancy in the countries to its immediate south. I submit respectfully that no one would be more aware of that than President Carter and his advisers. I say to those who relish the prospect of the great American influence withdrawing completely from this area that only time will tell how stupid they are and that their wishful thinking will not pay off. All of this creates greater volatility in international and regional affairs. Accordingly, Australia must sustain its vigilance, as responsibly enunciated by the Prime Minister when he stated in clear terms that any intrusion which could create an imbalance in the Indian Ocean would be of the utmost concern to this nation. Of course it would. Obviously it is important for Australia to maintain a relationship with China- not thereby affecting in any way our desire for increasing friendship with the Soviet Union but, I repeat, maintaining a close diplomatic dialogue with mainland China. The reason for this is not merely what we seek profitable trade deals. China is the most populous nation on earth. It has considerable and vigorous human resources. Perhaps Australia, a small power without global ambitions but with a highly developed technology and great natural wealth, could well find a useful role to play in this scenario without abandoning one iota of our ideological philosophy. I want to abandon the cloak of diplomacy and speak right from the shoulder. The recent wailing, crying and compassion for the Fretilin forces in East Timor was the greatest bit of traitorous humbug that any of us ever heard. It was perfectly obvious that there was a pseudocommunist element endeavouring to gain a foothold on the mainland, which is within a cooee of where I live. It is within 20 minutes flying time from the mainland of Australia. All this wailing, crying and hypocrisy went on. Having said that, I want to make it perfectly clear that I would be utterly opposed to any persecution, execution, imprisonment or anything that might infringe upon human rights and human dignity. I do not exclude any nation to the north or north-west of this country. I want to leave our own area for a moment and comment on the terrible conflict which has occurred in Lebanon. The situation has been brought home to us in this country for 2 reasons. One is that we have tens of thousands of Lebanese- third generation Lebanese and newcomersliving in this country. The second reason relates to our own security. It would be a good idea for anyone who is the least interested in this subject to talk to those who have been our ambassadors in that country. They could show clearly that, right up until the conflict occurred, the Lebanon has been a buffer country between the Middle East and the Western world. It is critical that that country retains its independence. Its independence was sustained by many of the Western powers, despite what may have been the outward signs. At the moment it appears that peace has returned to Lebanon. There is some conflict in the southern pans of that country and I believe that Israel is not entirely uninvolved in this zone. I do not refer to the war with the Arab countries. Apparently the conflict is between the right wing Christians and the extremists amongst the Palestinians. These terrorists have earned the condemnation of the entire civilised world and they have been disowned by all in that pan of the world. It has been stated and those of us who have an additional interest in foreign affairs and who serve on various committees dealing with foreign affairs have been able to ascertain on reasonably reliable grounds that the initial war in Lebanon was stimulated, encouraged, if not caused directly by an infiltration of such terrorists groups who set Lebanese against Lebanese and created a genocidal conflict unheard of in the history of that part of the world or perhaps in any other part of the world. No Western country can stand aside and watch what was regarded as perhaps a small insignificant country fall victim to the most powerful occupier of the country. When I speak in that fashion I think of a country nearer to home- Papua New Guinea. Tied up with the security of Australia are the security of Papua New Guinea and the economy of that country. We are more or less at the crossroads at the present time. Should the secessionist movement in Bougainville grow to the point where there is an actual breakaway- I believe that the movement was never more vigorous than it is at the moment- it would mean that the only economic contribution of any consequence to Papua New Guinea would suddenly be taken away. I refer to the Bougainville copper mines. This would create an extremely dangerous situation for this country because quite suddenly there would be a huge economic crisis and the highest bidder could well and truly take over Papua New Guinea, either infiltrating through trade agencies or in other ways. There are many other matters of critical importance and I am sure that they will emerge in this debate. I congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs for what has been a splendid contribution and probably one of the most significant papers presented to this House. 219 EE4 Reid 0 0 UREN, Tom Mr UREN -The Foreign Minister's account of the foreign policy of this Government shows all too clearly that the coalition has learned nothing and has forgotten nothing. The evidence of gross error in the conduct of Australia's foreign relations is stamped on every page of the Foreign Minister's speech. On the Indian Ocean, East Timor, Indo-China and international nuclear policy there is firm evidence in every case that the Fraser Government has slipped away from the strongly independent line which the Labor Government was developing. I do not pretend that we had gone as far as I would have liked in forming an independent foreign policy. At least we made considerable progress in weaning Australia away from the servile reliance on the United States which had dictated our foreign policy during the previous 20 years. The Fraser Government has tried very hard to chain us again to the ties which the Labor Party had broken. It has not succeeded in this, partly because Labor had pushed our foreign horizon much too far and partly because there has been a new spirit of maturity in the foreign policy of the United States. In the past few years we have had a remarkable experience with a senior American diplomat admitting that the United States was grievously wrong in interfering in the international affairs of other governments. He went as far as he could in admitting America's gross offences against the people of Chile- one of the great crimes of this century. Now we have President Carter downgrading the importance of the Indian Ocean and completely refuting the scare tactics the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was using to exploit this as an issue. We have heard very little from the Prime Minister on the Indian Ocean now for some months. There are 2 reasons for this. In the first place, he had his fingers badly burned by Senator Sim's rejection of his alarmist line on the Indian Ocean. Senator Sim is the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Clearly he denied and repudiated the Prime Minister's attitude and policy on the Indian Ocean. Secondly, the change of government in the United States completely destroyed the rationale which the Prime Minister was trying to promote. I cannot recall any statement the Prime Minister has made about the Russians in the Indian Ocean since the Carter regime took office. For this reason, and for this reason alone, he has been spared the embarrassment which he has so richly earned. The Government has been badly caught out by this change of emphasis and it should have been decent enough to admit it. The Government's double standards and its blatant re-writing of the historical records emerges again in the Foreign Minister's remarks about Indo-China. We all recall the lies and the distortion which came from the coalition Government from the early 1960s through to 1 972 when the Labor Party took office. The preservation of corrupt military regimes in IndoChina was depicted as a vital aspect of Australia's security. According to the domino theory, if Indo-China fell to the communists it would only be a matter of months before Australia was threatened. We now see how groundless were these fears and how blatantly wrong was this propaganda which the Government used to stir up the electorate to its own advantage. That has been the sad point at issue amongst those forces from Menzies to Holt to Gorton, right through to McMahon, and even today there is this blatant fear of the downward thrust of the Asian horde. Through its own stupidity this Government has tried to create a basis of fear. This should never be forgotten when we read anything the Government says about Vietnam. According to the Foreign Minister, it is now in Australia's interests to see that the 3 governments of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos engage in peaceful activity. Might I say that it was always in the interests of Australia that IndoChina should be maintained as a zone of peace. The Minister goes on to refer to the Republic of Vietnam as a communist state hardened by 30 years of revolutionary struggle and war. Again we might question how this came about. It was the military aggression of this Government and its French and United States allies which produced what the Minister calls the most formidable military apparatus in Asia. This little nation of Vietnam stood up against the enormous might of the United States- the might firstly of the French Empire, then of the United States and, of course, later of the other allied nations- in its struggle to win independence. Powerful military state that it is, there is no sign that Australia's security has been threatened in any way because all of Vietnam is now a communist state. In fact, we are now much more secure because one of the world 's flashpoints has been brought to peace. The Minister points to the savage nature of the regime in Cambodia. He failed to mention that the United States, supported by the Australian Government, deliberately intervened in Cambodia and brought it into the war. There was a chance that Cambodia could have been kept out of the war and maintained as the only neutral nation of Indo-China. The Government supported the opportunism of United States militarism and so Cambodia was plunged into war. Its neutral government was destroyed, as was the puppet regime which replaced it. It is ironical to see this Government trying to lead the United States Government into the right course on Vietnam. I quote the Minister: In the case of Vietnam in particular, it will be dangerous if it is placed in a position where it feels that it can only maintain cordial relations with other communist states. We have put this view to the United States during the past year. It will be very many years before the atrocities by the United States and by the Australian Government are forgotten by the Vietnamese. Vietnam does not want Australia 's patronage in helping it to improve its international relations. What it does need is our economic aid to rehabilitate the country. It needs our aid. It needs United States aid. It needs the aid of the wealthy nations to rehabilitate the country and to try to bring it back from a war-torn area of great suffering so that its people can be lifted up and given a decent standard of living. There is no room for the arrogant and patronising attitude to Vietnam which is set out in the Minister's speech. Let me now turn to East Timor. The Minister's statement is filled with what are at best half truths and at worst downright untruths. To take one example, the Minister says that the Government assisted the efforts of the United Nations envoy to investigate the tragedy of East Timor. This is false and a downright misstatement. It is completely untrue. It is falsity of the worst kind. The Australian people know that at a crucial stage in the efforts to get the United Nations envoy to East Timor the Government closed down the Fretilin radio in Darwin. Rather than helping him to get to East Timor it destroyed any chance he had of making contact with one of the 2 contending parties. The Minister makes great play of the assistance his Government has given to East Timor through the Indonesian Red Cross. This body is giving aid only to one side and it is the Indonesian side. The people of East Timor who have been crushed in an oppressive invasion have been denied assistance. So have the Fretilin forces which have fought for the independence of their country. This Government is giving its humanitarian assistance to a national agency which by its nature cannot give aid to the other side. The Government's action in patting itself on the back for this action can only be described as contemptible. This Government should, as the Opposition has pointed out, be switching its aid from the Indonesian Red Cross to the International Red Cross. It has taken a one sided approach in the struggle of the peoples for self-determination of East Timor. The Government's claim that it is continuing its pressure on the Indonesian Government to organise an internationally acceptable act of self-determination is completely false. Where is the evidence? Yet the Government continues an extensive program of military aid and co-operation with the Indonesian generals. The United States has now recognised the serious implications of giving military aid to aggressors which use this military aid against the small and weak nations. At a time when the United States Congress has begun to sift the facts on East Timor, the Fraser Government is making play on its relationship with its great and powerful friend- Indonesia. All the Fraser Government has gained is the contempt of the Indonesian generals. Today we learned that the Indonesian Government called in our Ambassador in Jakarta for a dressing down that amounted to a blatant interference in Australia's internal affairs. The Government has conceived and connived in the betrayal of East Timor without earning a shred of respect from the Indonesian rulers and has only assisted to entrench the extremist element that exists in the military junta which controls that country. The evidence of the atrocities committed by these Indonesians in East Timor is starting to accumulate. We have the evidence of an Indonesian Christian organisation that atrocities have been committed. To give the evidence some weight an internal Indonesian organisation- I stress that it is internal- has spoken out about this evidence of the atrocities that have occurred in that country. We also have careful documentation of instances of atrocities from a respected officer of this Parliament, a man who was a senior diplomat with a very close knowledge of East Timor and its people. This evidence has now been given to a United States Congressional Committee. There is no doubt that when the Fraser Committee of the United States House of Representatives gets down to its task, it will compile a damning indictment of the Indonesian repression of the East Timorese people. International recognition of the enormity of the tragedy of East Timor is growing yet this government is too preoccupied with its good relations with the Indonesian military junta to accept the truth. It condemns the savagery of the Cambodian regime but it covers up the ferocity of Indonesia to a tiny country to which Australia owes a considerable debt. I now comment briefly on the remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) concerning the Government's nuclear policy. His statement affirmed that the Government would not make any decisions until it receives the final report of the Fox Committee. The whole tone of the Minister's public statement suggests, however, that the Government has made up its mind under intense pressure from the uranium miners to go ahead with uranium exports. Further, it assumes that the development of nuclear powered stations will go ahead. It ignores the international debate which is now under way on whether it is valid to continue this type of energy generation. Evidence from Norway, Japan, the United States, West Germany and Sweden suggests most strongly that throughout the world nuclear power projects are being cut back. There have been a number of cancellations of existing projects and there is no sign of any expansion of nuclear projects for years to come. Behind these developments lies the realisation of the mining companies that by the mid-1980s there will be a glut of uranium on the world market. This is the reason for the Government's urgent wish to get uranium exports under way. I therefor question the credibility of the Minister's speech. 222 10000 0 0 GILES, Geoffrey Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. 222 KNA Swan 0 0 MARTYR, John Mr MARTYR -Mr Deputy Speaker,I hope that my friends are as enthusiastic at the end of my remarks as they appear to be at the beginning. There are some who say that the electorate does not care about foreign affairs. It does care about foreign affairs and I know this because I walk about my Western Australian electorate of Swan. It could well be that the proximity of my electorate to this zone in the Indian Ocean about which we have been talking is important. In geography lessons in Western Australia it is taught that we are nearly as close to Jakarta as we are to Sydney. I support the remarks of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock). I have a few reservations, mainly about the power of dialogue in the face of guns and I am sure that the Minister has reservations also. Neither the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics nor China have changed enough for me to feel that the war, hot or cold or whatever one likes to call it, is over. The Soviet and China will always act in their own interests, never in ours, nor in the interest of genuine peace. I am glad that the Minister began his speech by pointing out that history is best remembered by its profound transitions in human affairs. I hope that by 'profound' he means something like the fall of the Roman Empire, or, perhaps, the French Revolution. Let us hope that there are no such profound transitions as far as Australia is concerned, for I fear that the passing of western civilisation in Australia, if it happens, will be marked by no bigger a sentence in world history than that accorded the overrunning of Christian civilisation in north Africa shortly after Augustine. I cannot even recall the date. The comparisons between Ancient Rome and the European-American civilisations, of which we are a part, are certainly not exact but there is enough of a comparison to make one think seriously about our future. As the Minister says, the last 25 years were certainly dominated by tensions between super powers. I am sure that it is not inherent in the Minister's speech that the values of the super powers are the same. They are most definitely not. Whatever is wrong with European-American Western values, they are infinitely superior to those of totalitarian marxism which could only establish itself in Russian and China by gaoling millions of people such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn and sending people to concentration camps as well as slaughtering millions of others. The Minister is well aware of this when he says: What does concern us and what we have felt obliged to draw to public attention is the extent, and the implications, of the Soviet arms build up in recent years. That build up threatens to destabilise the fundamental strategic balance. ... the Soviet Union has: first, closed the strategic nuclear gap between the United States and itself; second, substantially closed the naval gap between the United States and itself; and third, rapidly widened the gap in conventional land forces in its favour. Having done this it continues to outspend the United States in its arms program and shows no sign of letting up. We need strong values as well as strong defence to counter communist imperialism. The Minister hints at what may be wrong with our values when he talks of unprecedented influence profoundly affecting attitudes and expectations. 'Gimme' replaces 'giving' and the family in this country is disintegrating. Inner weakness and confusion leads to infidelity to principles and selfish sophisticated pragmatism. I think that this is what the Minister is hinting at when he talks about this unprecedented affluence and its effect. In the West we rationalise these weaknesses with words but we seem to retreat continually before the organised military and political power of the Soviet Union. This is what Solzhenitsyn is warning us about. He says that our weakness does not help the captive people of this world. His message is not just for the United States; it is for Australia as well. I think that we can thank God that the destiny of the free world and its protection does not rest in Australian hands. We can protect only ourselves and we would be wise to start now. It seems to me that what we are doing to help Vietnam and Cambodia, both communist countries, is not really in our best interests. I am reminded, seeing the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), that not so very long ago he was one of those who actually signed a petition seeking Australian aid to help the free people of Cambodia. I wonder whether he still feels the same way. I cannot see that helping communist countries will assist Australia in any way. They will not change or even modify their ideology and as Solzhenitsyn said, it does not really help the captive people, only their captors. The Minister performed a signal service when he said: For at least the next decade, we will still be a sparselypopulated, and richly endowed country in a world which is going to be increasingly overcrowded, short of food, energy and other essentials, and seized of the importance of how the world's resources are distributed and utilised. This is not an empty cliche. It points to the heart of Australia's foreign policy problem over the coming years. We had better address ourselves to it because it will certainly address itself to us. Those who think that it is a realistic approach to stand pat, to wait and see, to conduct business as usual, are seriously underestimating the dynamics of the situation. I do not believe there is a more significant paragraph than that in the whole of the Minister's statement because it presents the realities of the situation. The first clear assumption is that the false concept that we had under the previous Government of no foreseeable dangers in 15 years is dead and may finally be buried. The second assumption is that such wealth and resources as we have are also a strategic hazard, whilst we remain comparatively undefended. Thirdly, we do have the problem of inflation and industrial disturbance, about which honourable members opposite would know much more than I would, which seems to be delaying the quick development of our resources. Japan has decided to base a large sector of its energy on nuclear power. I mean no disrespect to our largest customer, but we should remember that 3 times this century Japan had been unsure enough of resource supplies to take drastic steps. The whole attitude of resource restrictions, advocated for many years by the Opposition and its friends in the extremist conservation movement, has been a disaster for Australia. If it is kept up, who knows what the consequences will be. The Minister properly has drawn attention to a number of foreign policy problems for Australia. There are several difficulties which may apply in the future. We may, for instance, find that the United Nations arguments now employed to justify the handing over to Marxism and Communism of large parts of Africa may well later apply to Australia, for we in this country have not been here for very much longer than some of those people who are now being driven out of Africa. The Minister mentioned earlier in his speech that ideology has diminished. That could well mean that it might also diminish between Japan and China to the extent that they may agree that because of their proximity and strength they would be foolish to attack each other. That might lead to agreement about spheres of influence. Japan has been a maritime power since 1901 and it may well believe that its sphere of influence is the Pacific, perhaps including this continent. China, on the other hand, being a traditional land power, may well follow its interests down the land mass. I believe that that presents quite some problems for us as a scenario for the future. The United States may well have gone from this area should ever that unfortunate scenario ocurr and we will be basically on our own, except for whatever military alliances we might have with those present in the Association of South East Asian Nations. The conclusions are clear for Australia in the future. We have to build our defences. The Minister has spelt it out- sparsely populated, richly endowed. How long has such a situation endured in world history without defence? It has been truly said by someone wiser than I- I cannot recall his name- that land without people will not endure while there are people without land. The Soviet Union will never really be worried by our words of concern about the Indian Ocean. Its response in East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia is what we have to remember. At the 25th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Brezhnev said: Detentedoes not in the slightest abolish, and cannot abolish or alter, the laws of the class struggle. No one should expect that, because of detente, Communists will reconcile themselves to capital exploitation. The article in which those words are quoted goes on to say: That interpretation of detente justifies the use of Western Communist Parties, and particularly communist-controlled trade union movements, to 'de-stabilise' Western political regimes. I believe that that sort of thing is going on here in Australia today, in spite of the scoffing of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young). The article continues: By virtue of that interpretation, detente is compatible with support for this or that so-called 'national liberation movement', whether in Vietnam or Angola or Rhodesia, even when the United States, from good motives or bad, is ready to leave local conflicts to local people. The Indian Ocean, as the Minister has pointed out, is vitally important to Australia. It is our necessary trade route. In Western Australia, particularly in my electorate, people are more conscious of it because that is the route over which our iron ore goes to Japan and that is the route by which our wheat and our wool go to other countries. Because of that we are more conscious of it. The Minister has produced a clear and definite policy about the Indian Ocean. Irrespective of the rationalising and the pragmatic sophistication of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), the Minister has said that our concern in the Indian Ocean is based on the premise that it can become a zone of peace only if it first becomes a zone of balance. How can it be a zone of balance? The Minister has drawn attention to the Soviet naval presence, not because we see it as a direct threat to Australia but because we see it as a destabilising and exacerbating development in the global strategic picture. The Minister said in his statement: We supported the modest extension of the facilities in Diego Garcia because of the existence of the very extensive Soviet facilities in Berbera and the not insignificant ones elsewhere in and around the Ocean. Absolutely nothing that the Leader of the Opposition says will negate that contention. The facts are quite plain. Who cares, anyway, what the Leader of the Opposition has to say? Who cares what the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) has to say? I suppose even fewer people care about that. Who cares for the Leader's rhetoric? I do not think the Australian electorate cares for it. At least, not so very long ago it indicated that it did not care for it. I do not think his own Party cares very much for it. But I do know one thing: I am quite certain that the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) reads every word and goes away and laughs heartily about it. All the old lefty cliches were trotted out tonight by the Leader of the Opposition. We had the usual ritual anti-Iberian bigotry which is always good for a cheer at Labor Party rallies. 224 KRR 0 0 MCLEAN, Ross Mr McLean - What did he say about the Baltic States? 224 KNA 0 0 MARTYR, John Mr MARTYR - But there was nothing about the Baltic States, as my friend from Perth says. He said not one word about the Baltic States and the atrocities that were committed there, nor of the dreadful betrayal by the Leader of the Opposition and his Party when they were in government. They did not care. As for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren), what did we hear from him? We heard fairy tales about Chile and Timor. We heard adulation for Communist regimes in Vietnam and exaggeration about the domino theory. There is no doubt that that has proven to be true so far, and we may well see it fulfilled before we are all dead. Then, of course, we heard these dreadful exaggerations about the Asian hordes. In my part of the country, of course, when I speak like this they ask me why I am not down on the mole looking for the sampans coming up the Swan River. That is the sort of exaggeration which has bedevilled debates about Australian foreign policy for as long as I have been around. It does no good at all in informing the Australian people when exaggerations such as that are made. We try to keep to the facts. I believe that the Minister's statement is full of facts, and those facts should give every single one of us concern. The vivid imagination of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in particular leaves me with absolutely nothing in the way of concrete facts to answer. He said nothing. It gives me very great pleasure to support the paper presented by the Minister. I commend it to the House and to the country as being a most realistic document which, if made available to the people of this country- I know that it will be- will make them glad to get something definitive in foreign affairs for the first time in 4 years. There is no question at all but that during the regime of the previous Government foreign affairs degenerated into trips to those countries which were previously our enemies and, indeed, which I believe are still our enemies in many respects. 224 MH4 0 0 JULL, David Mr Jull - Junkets. 224 KNA 0 0 MARTYR, John Mr MARTYR -Junkets. It seems to me that with the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs we can look forward from here on in to factual and informative debate on foreign affairs. 224 JSU Wills 0 0 BRYANT, Gordon Mr BRYANT -Surely the Government Whip must have been suffering a rush of nostalgia when he turned on the honourable member for Swan (Mr Martyr) as part of this debate, taking us back to some time in the early 1950s. How did the honourable member for Swan get into the act? Is the Government Whip keeping him as a pet? I suppose that this evening we have heard one of the quaintest foreign policy speeches we are likely to hear in this country. We have had communist imperialism running rampant across the globe; Australia undefended, the family falling to pieces and all the rest of it. Is that a foreign policy speech? The honourable member for Swan talked about the false concepts behind the Labor Party's policies. What are the concepts behind the policies that we have heard enunciated tonight. There were 22 pages of them in a speech lasting 1 Va hours or thereabouts from the Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock). What was that speech about? I am as good at examining definitions as the next man but I did not hear anything definitive in the speech. I did not find any principles espoused and the policies that are going to fit them being enunciated. What ought we be talking about at this time? What are the principles of foreign policy? It is a wonderful area for the essays such as we have just heard from the honourable member for Swan and for the sixth form essay from the Foreign Minister. At this moment I think Australia should be trying to expand the field of human rights around the world. It ought to be in the business of attempting to create greater areas of international cooperation. It ought to be establishing fields in which we can encourage greater mutual support amongst nations to help one another. We should be building upon the affinities of which we have a large number because of our affiliation with the Commonwealth, our membership of the United Nations and our place in this part of the world. We should be recognising the facts of the 1970s. For instance, I suppose one of the principal facts at this time is that there are so many hungry people and so few giving help. I should have liked to have heard the Minister telling us about what we are going to do to try to get the surplus food of the Australias, the Canadas and the Russias of this world into the mouths of the hungry people. I recognise the great difficulties involved- the business of being able to transport, process and finance such an operation. But there is nothing of this in the document we have before us tonight. I looked in vain for the definitive policies of which we were told. What I heard was an exposition I suppose, or a description of the situation in the world, and a pretty pessimistic one at that. I looked for some more definite statement of where we really stand in our relationship with Indonesia and Timor and as regards Indonesia's recent behaviour. The thing that baffles me about the honourable member for Swan is not his concern about the Baltic States. I can sympathise with his view of that situation, but it is one of the facts of life that the Baltic States are part of the Soviet Union. However, the Baltic States are 12 000 miles away and we can do nothing about the situation. Timor is only 400 miles from the Australian mainland and on that situation Government supporters are as silent as the grave. That, I think, is the test of where one stands in this business. The cry of humanity is universal: 'I am with you'. Perhaps we are sometimes silent on those things that happen in the Khmer Republic. Basically it is because we feeland I feel like this about it- that there is little one can do in that case. We cannot spend our time coursing around the country enunciating new policies for areas about which we can do little. But Timor is a place about which we can do a great deal. So I take that as a demonstration of what the foreign policy of a country such as Australia ought to be at this time. First, let me denounce the craven policy of the Australian Government in relation to Indonesia. My friend, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), pointed out how we had behaved about wireless communications with Timor. It would be worthwhile reminding ourselves of how we heard the very faint messages coming from Timor back in 1942 and 1943, how we were grateful to receive them and how we eventually rescued the people from there. Goodness me, inheritors of all the traditions of assisting the recalcitrant, mutinous and rebellious people of Europe as we are- the inheritors of British tradition- have turned dog on people even listening to the radio from Timor. I think that is disgraceful. I think it is an incredible action on the part of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) and that the people of his electorate stand for his doing so. Tonight we have heard the final insult. Australia's Ambassador in Indonesia apparently has been called in and told that the Indonesian Government is displeased because an Australian public servant I think they called him- a servant of the Government- is going to the United States of America to tell them about the situation in Timor. He is not of course a servant of this Government; he is a servant of this Parliament. I hope everybody in this Parliament will protect his right to seek out the truth. I hope that Australia 's response to that action and the Minister's response will be emphatic. I consider that that is a piece of impertinence on the part of the Indonesia Government that ought not to be tolerated. It is a gross interference with the rights of Australian citizens and we must tell Indonesia so. I believe it is a very serious breach of the trust that we should have developed in this part of the world for the Australian Government to make the concessions it has already made to Indonesia. I do not belong to the school of thought that believes that the friendship of Indonesia is worth the suffering of the people of Timor. I do not believe that we need to crawl to anybody. I do not believe that that is what the traditions we have inherited really mean. The time has come for us to make a stand. What can we do about it? I suppose that a simple demonstration of what we can do about it is what Mr Dunn has done about it in attempting to find out the truth, what members of this Parliament have done in writing to the President of the United States and the United States Congress and what I have done by going to Portugal in January and speaking to the Timorese refugees. I give the members of this House my personal guarantee that insofar as one can take the words of people who say that they have seen this and that, there is a prima facie case against the Indonesian Government. Hundreds of such people in Portugal will relate stories of what has happened. These are not only people who have seen these things but people who also report what others have seen. When I came back to Australia people asked: 'But how many eye witnesses did you find?' I do not know that I spoke to all that many eye witnesses, but how many people would be found guilty of murder if only the evidence of eye witnesses could be used? How many of the war criminals of the last War would have gone to the scaffold if we had had to rely on eye witnesses? One of the piquant and, I suppose, more hypocritical elements of the speech before us tonight was the assertion of horror on the part of the Minister about the situation in Uganda. We can all be full of horror about Uganda, as indeed we ought to be, but why was there such a stunning silence from the Minister about what is happening in Timor? What can we do? One might say that it was a serious challenge to Australia's international integrity. For the first time in our history, I expect, the world looked to us for guidance. Australia is 'away out there' to most people of Europe and, I expect, to most people of the Americas and Asia. Timor is even more remote. We are its closest neighbour. We would be expected to set the standards. While I was in Europe I spoke to people in the British Parliament. I went to Dublin and spoke to officers of its Department of Foreign Affairs. I spoke to members of the Department of Foreign Affairs in Portugal. I spoke to members of Portugal's Parliament and I interviewed the staff of the Prime Minister and of the Socialist Party. It is obvious that the Portuguese need the kind of support we can give them to stand up to the Indonesian Government. If we give that support the Portuguese will stand fast. If the Portuguese stand fast, it is my guess that the other European governments with which they are now in partnership, will also stand fast. From such a simple demonstration of solidarity and understanding on our part we would be able to generate an international reaction. I remind honourable members of the disgraceful situation in which Australia found itself during the vote in the United Nations back in December last when we abstained from voting. I say emphatically that this is the real test of Australia's international integrity. Do we believe in human rights? Do we stand against aggression- communist, noncommunist, national aggrandisement, call it what one will? If we do, we stand against what Indonesia has done and is continuing to do in Timor. I am heartened in this Parliament by the fact that, I think, 95 members from both sides of the Parliament and from both Houses of the Parliament signed the document that was recently sent to the United States. That shows there is a current of feeling in this Parliament upon which the Government should capitalise to demonstrate to the world that we will not stand this kind of nonsense. I ask for the support of the House tonight which will be an encouragement to the Government on the next occasion it comes to a debate in the United Nations to vote solidly against the Indonesian behaviour, to give Portugal our full support, and to use whatever persuasion we can on the rest of the world to get other countries to stand on the same ground. I do not believe that the Indonesian action is a fait accompli. There are few faits accomplis in history. There is always the chance of change. A person I interviewed in Ireland said to me: 'We are inclined to think here that it is a fait accompli.' I said to him: 'Fancy anybody in Ireland talking about a fait accompli in history'. It was 1 172, I think, when Henry II landed on Ireland 's shores but the Irish got rid of most of the English in the 1920s. We have a duty to the people of Timor. I do not have time this evening to raise with honourable members opposite, and those on this side of the House as well, the general question of refugees in which Australia has played a pretty poor role so far. We have done our little bit, but it is a very little bit. 226 KCQ 0 0 GRAHAM, Bruce Mr Graham - We have done more than most other people. 226 JSU 0 0 BRYANT, Gordon Mr BRYANT -That may well be true but the honourable member knows full well that he never looked to see what other people were doing when duty called; he went himself. Surely we do not measure our duties by what we see other people doing; rather it is what we think we ought to do. One of the great difficulties one faces in a debate on Australia's international affairs is the feeling amongst Australians that we are so small that we cannot do much, that our influence is minute in such a great, big, wonderful world. One of the things which the Minister said tonight with which I agree was that the super powers have a diminishing influence upon the world at large and capacity to enforce their will. Over most of history it has not been the big battalions that have decided the results. Some of the greatest influences of history have flowed out of the small communities such as Greece of more than 2000 years ago or Britain at the end of the Elizabethan times and the beginning of the seventeenth century. We are in this role now in this world. We are larger in population than almost 100 of the members of the United Nations. We are larger in area than all except five or six of them. We have more industrial capacity, resources and all the rest of it than all except ten or twelve of them. When the chips are down it is integrity and intellectual understanding of the issues that will make things matter when human beings sit around a table. I think Australia has been abdicating its opportunities and responsibilities by continuously acting in the past as though it did not matter what we said, that big brother would have to fix it. I think that started to fade after the war with the collapse of the imperialist systems. The world is now open to the Australias and so on to exercise their proper influence. 227 QF4 Bradfield 0 0 CONNOLLY, David Mr CONNOLLY - I wish to congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) on his excellent policy statement. It is a clear and incisive statement of Australia's place in the world. In fact the Minister has demonstrated conclusively that he is the most perspective Foreign Minister for the last quarter of a century. Regrettably he was followed in the debate by Australia's Talleyrand, the man who holds himself to be the greatest Prime Minister, the greatest Foreign Minister and hopefully the greatest Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam). But of course that depends on the people behind him. Nevertheless, he told us tonight in no uncertain terms about how we have equivocated, how our policies have been less than sincere and yet during those 3 years we saw 3 examples, as the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) would no doubt remember, of the human rights of other people being swept aside as a sacrifice to what was good for the man and what he thought was good for his image. I refer to the question of Vietnamese refugees. Where the United States of America evacuated some 86 000 Vietnamese before the collapse of Saigon, Australia evacuated a mere 78 Vietnamese. We were quite happy to take with us our furniture and other paraphernalia of our embassies, but we were not prepared to take the staff who had worked loyally beside us for some years. Since then the United States has also provided homes for some 150 000 refugees while we settled a mere 2500 refugees. That is the position we inherited from the previous Whitlam Government. Let us now turn to Timor. We heard so much from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) about how we have proceeded with a policy of perfidy in relation to Timor. Let us also see the situation in its true perspective. The mess we inherited in November of 1975 was such that no Government could turn back the history book. The trend had already been set. Timor had been lost because the government of the day, when it had the opportunity, had not the intestinal fortitude to face the Indonesians with the courage demonstrated by the honourable member for Wills a few years ago. When he was in Cambodia and saw what was happening he sent a telegram to the then Prime Minister saying: 'Give arms to the Cambodian people to help them defend themselves'. But no similar approach was taken in respect of Timor when the Australian Labor Government- a government of compassion and concern as we so often hear it described in this House- did so little to help those people. I also remind other honourable members of the case of the Baltic states. Against the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs and of the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was out of the country at the time, the Prime Minister of the day decided entirely on his own initiative that for some extraordinary reason- to befriend the Russianshe was prepared to sacrifice the last vestiges of the nationality of a small group of people in the Australian community who had love for the countries of their birth. Their sympathies were to be sold for the 30 pieces of silver. I wonder what the historians will make of that and I wonder why that price was paid. Unlike our predecessors who tended to see the world as they would like it to be, it is essential that we be realistic under present circumstances and see it for what it is, with the hope that by influencing the trend of events we can establish a more stable future for all mankind. For many years Australians tended to see themselves as an appendage of empire and later a junior partner of the United States. While such attitudes to a large extent reflected the true relativities they had the unfortunate effect of making Australians undervalue their nation's potential influence on world events. It is certainly time that we reassessed our attitudes towards various international trends and without exaggerating our weaknesses had a realistic appreciation of our strengths, and above all our massive potential. We are one of the few nations on earth which has the outstanding advantage of being in fact masters of all we survey. Australia is, and hopefully will remain, one country and thus will be saved from the difficulties which have plagued most of the states in history by virtue of the fact that by sharing common borders their relationships tended to be charged with potential conflict. The fact that we have been for so long isolated as an outpost of western civilisation has also tended to warp our international perspective and to encourage our people and governments to look for protection from others rather than see what we can do to help ourselves. Australia, like most countries, is dependent for its well being on the quality and quantity of its international trade. For this reason we have been actively involved in organisations such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the International Monetary Fund, and in recent years the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Through ANZUS we have managed to maintain our key relationship with the United States and New Zealand in the hope that our common interests in the Pacific region will be of mutual benefit in the maintenance of stability in that area. In recent years, there has also been a tendency to play down Australia's membership of the Commonwealth. It is true that the Commonwealth has no guns with which to defend us, its members do not vote as a bloc in international assemblies, many of them do not have particularly close relations with Australia. Nevertheless, membership does give us a unique insight at the highest level into the affairs of 35 other nations representing as they do a spectrum of the peoples of the world. It is in every sense of the word a mini United Nations, linked together by a common affinity based on heritage and history. We share a common language and, through similar educational systems, are able to share similar ideas. The Commonwealth is indeed a unique institution and worth preserving, if for no other reason than it gives its members an opportunity to discuss world problems and seek for peaceful solutions in a community of interest. In our international relations, it is important to have a perspective, not only on the world we would like to see but on the role we believe Australia should play in it, and in this context our democratic system of government, the background of our peoples, must play a part in fusing together an Australian consciousness. Until we achieve that, we are incapable of asserting the substance of nationality truly effectively. Our past history has, to a large extent, seen us as a small people in fear of large and populous neighbours, seeking refuge at the end of the island chain of South East Asia, building barriers both real and psychological against much of the world and regrettably from much which would benefit our civilisation. Fortunately, international realities and improvements in communication and in transportation, have opened to many Australians a much wider appreciation that we are but a tiny microcosm of mankind, and we can no longer rely on the natural advantages of our insular position, for we have no choice but to seek for the development of inter-locking relationships, both with our traditional allies and friends and with other states which may not share our moral or political views. Regardless of this, they do share this same planet, and their welfare is obviously inextricably bound up with ours. The world today is both unstable and insecure, and no developed state, nor any government, can guarantee prosperity and security indefinitely without taking a very hard look at reality. Keeping in mind that the substance of any foreign policy must be directed towards national development and prosperity, combined with national security, obviously one is of little use without the other and it is for that reason that the present Government has placed so much importance on the need to rebuild our armed forces and redirect our military potential at the protection of Australia after 3 years of decay under the Whitlam Government. For many decades various governments' foreign policies were seen as a pursuit of an esoteric concept, gilding the lily of reality rather than muddying their hands in the soil of life, but those days are over. The need for a high degree of international economic cooperation, the relationships between our various economies, the impact upon all nations of cyclical booms and busts and the need for viable export trade by primary producing countries in return for finished goods from the major industrialised nations including Australia, clearly reflects what I said earlier, namely, that we are living in a closely related world. The major industrial democracies should have a common interest in the stability of currency, the expansion of freer trade and to minimise where possible extremes of economic fluctuation. The problems of the last 3 years, stemming from 300 per cent OPEC price rises for oil, affected many countries, but certainly Australia to a much lesser degree. Although the difficulties were not due solely to that factor, they made us aware of international as well as national economic difficulties. The last 5 years, with the development of a new world economic order through the United Nations, have also brought the developed world into potential conflict with many developing countries which believe, and rightly so, that they too have every right to expect a fair share of the world's resources and the benefits which technology has brought to mankind. We may forget at our peril the fundamental fact that one-third of the world's population has a per capita income of less than $200 per year. Of particular relevance to Australia is the fact that the population of the developing countries, many of which are our closest neighbours, is likely to increase by 60 per cent before the end of this century. If I may quote from the Foreign Minister - For at least the next decade, we will still be a sparsely populated and richly endowed country in a world which is going to be increasingly overcrowded, short of food, energy and other essentials, and seized of the importance of how the world 's resources are distributed and utilised. The Australian Government is committed to working towards a more rational economic order, with the primary objective of giving the poor, the hungry and the needy of this nation and this world the opportunity to realise their full potential as human beings. Of course the massive transference of resources which some developing countries demand cannot be achieved in the short term, without massive structural readjustments among developed countries. Nevertheless, Australia. as one of the most resource rich nations on earth, will, I believe, have the opportunity to exert considerable influence in helping to redress the imbalance in the world economy. As a major primary exporter we also have much in common with many developing countries whose balance of payments is subject to the vagaries of the world commodity markets. With the possible exception of the United States relationship with Latin America, we are the only developed Western country which is in fact cheek by jowl with a large segment of the developing world. While the countries of the European Economic Community have made substantial assistance available to the developing nations, especially in Africa, our primary area of responsibility must obviously be South East Asia and the Pacific. For this reason the Government is continuing to take a close interest in a north south dialogue between the developed and developing world and through organisations such as the Conference on International Economic Co-operation, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, the Colombo Plan, the Association of South-East Asian Nations and numerous multilateral organisations, funded by both government and private sources we are playing our part. One important feature of the Minister's speech was the initiative taken by him to improve Australia 's relations with the EEC and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The government has recognised that the uniqueness of the Community is that it seeks to build both economic and political institutions, bringing together in a sense of unity and participation a large group of states which throughout history have been characterised by their capacity to fight among themselves rather than see the common interests of Europe as a whole. Nevertheless the combined economic strength of the EEC is greater than that of any other nation. Consequently, it is of vital importance that Australia strengthen its relations with western Europe, in addition to our trade and economic associations at present. I hope that the Government will encourage members of this Parliament to join delegations to the annual meeting of the Council of Europe where we are given the unique opportunity of discussing with fellow members of parliament from virtually all the European democracies as well as Japan, Canada and the United States, matters of common interest and to participate in debate on diverse issues ranging from Southern Africa to the OECD. The Council of Europe with the inclusion of Portugal and hopefully Spain, will in every sense of the word be the parliament of the democracies. I believe it is worthy of our support and to do so would certainly be consistent with the Government's attitude towards expanding our relations with western Europe. The Government's attitude towards China and the Soviet Union was well canvassed by the Minister and I have no need to add to that. However, while Dr Kissinger's policy of detente may be somewhat threadbare, its essential characteristics are still valid. We seek for a lessening of tension through negotiation, but an effective detente without security is a contradiction in terms. When the growth of the Soviet Union's military capacity over the last few years is examined in detail, one would be naive in the extreme to believe that mighty arsenal is being produced solely to be melted down into ploughshares. I believe the military establishment of the Soviet Union is now so powerful in the Kremlin that it has a very strong voice at the highest levels of policy making. Communist Russia, like its predecessor, Imperial Russia, has always had delusions of international grandeur, and just as the Kaiser's Germany saw the growth of its navy as the key to European domination the evidence would suggest that the Kremlin has taken a similar point of view with regard to the expansion of the Soviet navy. In fact, Admiral Gorshkov, Commander of the Russian naval forces for 2 decades, said: 'The flag of the Soviet Navy flies over the oceans of the world'. Surely those words are worth remembering. The Government's attitude towards the presence of the Soviet Union in the Indian Ocean is perfectly clear. If we lived in an ideal world, of course we would wish to see the Indian Ocean demilitarised, but while the Russians maintain bases at Berbera in Somalia and on the island of Socotra at the entrance to the Red Sea, they have the capacity to cut the fuel line from Iran to Europe, Australia and Japan at any time. For an Australian government to ignore that potential threat to our communications and vital sources of fuel would be committing an act of the highest irresponsibility. It is for that reason that we have encouraged the United States to maintain a presence in the Indian Ocean. We believe that presence is necessary until demilitarisation becomes a little more than a figment of the imagination. The world's future is insecure. The future of Australia, as a part of the community of nations, is obviously closely linked. It is a great pity that we in this Parliament cannot achieve some degree of consensus on the future of our nation as a part of the world community. 230 JF7 Fremantle 0 0 BEAZLEY, Kim Mr BEAZLEY -The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) asked us to make realistic analyses. I certainly agree with the honourable gentleman that that is overdue in discussions in this House on foreign affairs. One of the unreal statements made by the honourable gentleman was his last reference to the Soviet presence in Somalia and Socotra. Before Israel carried out its rescue operation at Entebbe, another nation did precisely the same thing. I venture to say that nobody in the House could name the nation. The nation was France. When the Somali Government kidnapped French schoolchildren the French neutralised the Somali troops and rescued the children. The Somali government expected the Soviet Navy in this area to intervene. It is of course an entirely insignificant navy. On the form of analysis of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), one minesweeper for 30 days in the Indian Ocean is 30 ship days for the Soviet navy; one super United States carrier which is capable of destroying nations and which is operating for 10 days represents only 10 United States ship days in the Indian Ocean. But Somaliland expected the Soviet navy to intervene against France. Because the French navy in the northern Indian Ocean was overwhelmingly more powerful than that of the Soviet Union, and in any event the Soviet Union did not intend to start a world war over the kidnapped French children, the Soviet in its facility in Somalia which no American naval man calls a base did absolutely nothing. The honourable member for Bradfield spoke about the Baltic States recognition as an individual action by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) when he was Prime Minister. That action did give some moral credit towards what was an unjustified occupation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia back in 1945. But its effect in the world, in spite of what the honourable member was saying, was simply to present the Liberal Party with the votes of the Baltic people in Australia. It made no difference whatever to the situation in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. The non-recognition by the present Government, although it is a moral gesture, makes no difference either. Nobody is going to start a world nuclear war to liberate Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia from the Soviet Union. We are speaking in terms of moral gestures. The honourable member for Bradfield feels that the moral gesture was a contemptible one. I believe it was a thoroughly mistaken one. But it was no more contemptible than the approach of this Government for joint naval manoeuvres with the Indonesian Navy, an approach which was snubbed, while the Indonesians were engaging in the kind of massacre in which they are engaging in East Timor. So if the honourable gentleman wishes to get into the game of moral credits and moral discredits, and asks us to look objectively at the facts in the world, let us look objectively at all the facts. My years in Parliament have been mostly under conservative governments. So the version of the world that I have heard in foreign policy statements has been mostly a conservative caricature of the world and very definitely a version not created to deal with the world but to deluge Australia with a kind of conventional pseudowisdom. Let us go back over some of them. The Suez Canal was a jugular vein, a lifeline for Australia. Well do 1 remember Sir Robert Menzies leaning across the table and saying that to me. The essence of the Vietnam War was that the Chinese were coming south. Well do I remember Sir Paul Hasluck's pamphlets. It was said that the Chinese had armed forces in Vietnam. I remember when finally the late Harold Holt said that that was not true and never had been true. Yet we had publications from the Department of Foreign Affairs that suggested it was true. Then Menzies said that not to stand for white supremacy everywhere- he said this twice- including in India and Indonesia, whose independence he opposed, was to quote him 'the ecstasy of suicide'. We were told that hungry eyes were cast on our land. The honourable member for Bradfield got very close to trotting that one out tonight. 230 JNO 0 0 BAILLIEU, Marshall Mr Baillieu - Is it true? 230 JF7 0 0 BEAZLEY, Kim Mr BEAZLEY -No, I do not think it is true. The list of this sort of misrepresentation about the world is endless. The worst of it was that it was genuine and total misunderstanding. But one aspect was not and never was misunderstanding. It was the eternal pose that the United States of America was waiting with bated breath to see that the Liberals won elections and that their policy supported the Liberal view of the world. The United States policy on all decisive issues was to pull the rug from under the Liberal policy. Sir Robert Menzies went to Suez to save the jugular vein, the lifeline. The Liberals asked the question: If it were closed, how could Australia live? We managed to live for 8 years after the closure. But when Sir Robert came out with this policy John Foster Dulles pulled the rug from under him. It was United States pressure which forced Britain to get out. This was the decisive influence on Britain leaving there. Then Sir Robert, in a gesture for which I had much more sympathy for him, said that West Irian, or Dutch New Guinea as it was then known, was a question of Dutch sovereignty, a matter for Dutch negotiation and then a matter for self-determination. Gradually the Liberal government switched from a policy of self determination to one of a throw away of former Dutch New Guinea. The reason was not that it had changed its convictions but that it had suddenly learnt from Bobby Kennedy that as far as the United States policy was concerned, and vital though West Irian was to Australia- if Papua New Guinea was of strategic interest to Australia, West T-ian was of precisely the same strategic interest- it was of no strategic interest whatsoever to the United States. The United States was at that stage engaged in keeping Sukarno in credit. It was only later that the distinguished conservative senator in the United States, dealing with one of these attempts to murder the heads of foreign states, said that the attempted murder of Sukarno bore all the hallmarks of a Central Intelligence Agency operation- everyone in the room was killed except Sukarno. It was not at that stage that the United States was opposing Sukarno's demand for West Irian. But Bobby Kennedy came south to tell everybody that West Irian should be in Indonesian hands, and the rug was pulled once more from underneath Liberal policy. Then the United States withdrew from Vietnam and everything that had been said for years about this policy and the necessity for it was made to appear completely senseless. There never was a really critical view of American policy in Vietnam when that country was there. The decisive event in the Vietnam story in my view was the overthrow of Ngo dinh Diem. After that South Vietnam found great difficulty in getting a credible policy Now we have this last example- the Indian Ocean. It is not impossible that both the United States and the Soviet Union will withdraw from this region because the north Indian Ocean can be an area of threat to the Soviet Union. The abandonment of Somalia's base would be a very small price to pay for the withdrawal of American nuclear submarines targeted onto the cities of the Donetsk Basin from this area. It is quite likely that both will retire and then the zone of peace which honourable gentlemen opposite have been speaking about as some kind of subversive concept, at least as far as the great powers are concerned, will have disappeared. I wrote a letter to the present Foreign Minister (Mr Peacock) about United States action in Ethiopia. Since 1953 the United States has been supplying Ethiopia with arms. Ethiopia has a Muslim province, Eritrea, which is ideologically important in the Middle East. The present China-line communist government of Ethiopiathat is what it is- was still being armed by the United States when, to suppress Eritrea, it started strangling what it might have regarded as the intellectual leadership, high school boys and university graduates, with piano wire. When this produced a rebellion, the Abyssinian Government, following a sentimental Chinese policy, thought it could put in a people's army living off the Country, but it tried to do it in a year of terrible drought and the army perished. The Government was then supplied with napalm and sophisticated aircraft with which to destroy the Eritrean people. I wrote to the present Foreign Minister asking whether he could make representations to the United States about the unwisdom of this policy. I realise that what the United States was then doing was encouraging Ethiopia to press towards Eritrea and Somalia in order to push the Soviet base out of Somalia, the Ethiopia Government being China-lined and desiring to eliminate the Soviet Union. I pointed out that the genocide of the people of Eritrea, especially if it were done with United States arms, could have very unfortunate repercussions in the Muslim states of the Middle East, apart from the utter inhumanity of the policy. The Foreign Minister was kind enough to write back to me and say that this was a matter on which I could make representations to the American Government myself. So I wrote to Mr Ford and I wrote to Governor Carter, who was then his opponent in the elections. The reply I got back from Ford's office was to the effect that the Americans had been providing arms to Ethiopia since 1 953, that it was unfortunate that they were being used in this way but they considered it in the United States interests. But President Carter has not considered it to be in the United States interests and he named Ethiopia as one of the powers of inhumanity to which the United States would no longer give assistance. The whole of this policy was based on the concept of how to eliminate or to encourage Ethiopia to eliminate the Somalia base. We have heard statements recently from the American Ambassador who has just retired about what American free enterprise thinks about the prospects of investment in Australia. May we come back to the real world? The Western powers, predominantly the United States, at the present time have given credits of $46,000m to the eastern European communist powers. Of that $46,000m a sum of $30,000m in credits has been given to the Soviet Union. The plain fact, as any people from the European community will tell you, is that American free enterprise will give money and trading deals on better terms to the Soviet Union than it will to Britain or any power of Western Europe. When we have the American Ambassador here talking to us about the political and ideological sensitivities of American free enterprise, let us come back to that fact. When honourable gentlemen opposite are telling us about the scale of armament of the Soviet Union, please let us remember that the Soviet Union could not sustain that armament if it were not for the trade credits which it has received from the West, predominantly from the United States, predominantly from free enterprise, which enable it to impose that arms burden on the Soviet people without making as massive a deduction from their consumer standard of living as it would have to if these credits were not available. I commend the honourable member for Bradfield for asking us to look at all the facts of the world. I doubt that the facts of the world will sustain anybody's propaganda in this House. 232 JVS St George 0 0 NEIL, Maurice Mr NEIL -The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) is to be congratulated on the very forward-looking statement that he has made today. The nation does not always fully debate or appreciate issues of foreign policy although they are matters that lie underneath the current daily issues. Every Australian is vitally interested in what occurs in the world about us and in the world at large. Let us hope that the standard of debate in the community will rise over the next few years and that foreign policy will take its place in the public mind as one of the major issues with which we have to deal. Tonight, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) appeared to gloat over certain aspects of recent developments. He took great glee from the fact that it appeared that the American President had made a statement regarding the Indian Ocean without a formal decision being conveyed through usual channels to Australia. Of course there is no doubt that the American intentions were known to the Australian Government beforehand. If the Leader of the Opposition is genuine in his statement that we should be seeking a genuine partnership for peace and progress with the American nation, let him include in his statement some references to defence and to a partnership on the defence of this region of the world. He made no mention of a proper defence relationship with the United States in specific terms. He talked about things that we would all like to see, that we would all laud- peace and progress, mutual commitment to the developing nations, and attacks on racism and other evils. We would all agree with those. But what was lacking in the Leader of the Opposition 's statement was any mention of the real need for continuing mutual co-operation in matters of defence to supplement our foreign policy relationships with the Americans. That emphasises the regrettable lack of reality in the Opposition's approach to defence. Unfortunately in the last few months we have seen a failure on the part of the Opposition really to give us much indication of its interest in this area. The Pacific Defence Report, a respected publication, in its editorial in the March edition of this year stated that unfortunately there has been no evidence of a proper interest by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) in the shadow portfolio of defence. There is a reference to the honourable member's attitudes towards economic policies. The article states: Unfortunately there has been no such evidence of a matching interest in his shadow portfolio of defence. It is time for the Labor Party and Mr Hayden to meet their responsibilities in this important area. It is quite clear that the Australian Labor Party has no real interest in this area and has no real interest in meeting its responsibilities towards helping us find a bi-partisan foreign policy and a bi-partisan defence policy. If it did then we could go about establishing a proper and reasonable relationship with the Americans. If the Labor Party does not want to join in this, then let it say so. We will not be thwarted. We will go ahead. We will develop the defences of this country, as we have a mandate from the people to do, and we will develop our relationships with our neighbours and in particular with the United States. The Leader of the Opposition said that the United States does not want to have toadies for friends. I would make it quite plain that I would call upon him and the Government to start putting their words exactly where the Leader of the Opposition says. Let them make an approach to the American President jointly to point out that this country, this Government, would welcome foreign POliCY statements that affect Australia being made by the American President in a formal way, even though we may realise what the Americans are going to say. I say that because we need a proper partnership with the Americans. We will have a full partnership with the Americans, but obviously that partnership is to be based on this country helping itself and the Americans will then help us. There is no point in our getting away from this fact: There is a new ball game. There is a new set of foreign policy relationships upon which we have to embark. They are based primarily upon our traditional relationships with the very important countries with which we have always had relationships, particularly the United States. But more and more this country will become dependent on its own resources, on its own strength, upon the morale of its own people, upon the spirit of its people, upon the development of its own resources, upon its own economic relationships with nearby countries and upon the development of its own strong defences. In the speech of the Leader of the Opposition tonight we heard a lot of personal attacks upon members of the Government. This was most unbecoming. He should have addressed himself to the issues. It was most noticeable that he did not even address the House. Most of the time he turned around and addressed the Opposition benches. Just behind him sits a man, recently described in the popular Press as Brutus, who seeks to take over from him. The Leader of the Opposition was not even prepared to address the nation fully and forthrightly on these matters. He spent half his time in making personal attacks. Opposition members are totally unrealistic about what is going on in the world around us. They seek to make play of the American statements on the Indian Ocean. This Government has made its position quite clear. Of course we would Uke to see a zone of peace but firstly there has to be a zone of balance and then we hope that we can get around to having a demilitarised area. The only practical, feasible possibility that comes to my mind is that the Americans might be able to come to some agreement with the Soviets for a trade-off in which American submarines would no longer be stationed in that area and no longer would Russian surface ships be stationed in that area. As I understand the present position, the range of new American missiles is such that they can reach certain targets within the Soviet Union without there being a need for American ships to patrol in the north-western areas of the Indian Ocean. So the world's balance would not be affected. I am very doubtful that such a dramatic arrangement could be reached within the near future. If the Americans can achieve something of a balance in the area and a reduction in the forces, well and good, but until the Soviet Union demonstrates some tangible, credible willingness to do so, the Soviet Union must be treated as a continuing overall global threat to world peace. The questions have to be asked simply: Why are they continuing to arm at a terrific rate? Why do they need the huge amounts of armaments that are being deployed throughout the world? In particular why do they need excessive capabilities in strategic nuclear weapons? Why do they need an entire new generation of conventional weapons which they are producing? Why do they need such a massive superiority in Europe? Why do they need to patrol throughout the world and have their naval ships and their so-called civilian ships in every ocean of the world? The Opposition members do not produce one answer as to why the Soviets should be spending such massive sums of money in obtaining such an obvious dramatic superiority. The only answer can be one of 2 things: Either they are desperately paranoiac about the situation- if this is so we should do everything possible to convince them of our intentions for peace- or alternatively they are seeking some offensive capability against the West, either potential or for actual use. At present the Soviets are apparently embarking upon a tremendous drive for civil defence capabilities. The day may come when they can absorb nuclear attack with very little comparable loss. Their major industries, major headquarters and much of their population will be able to absorb and survive nuclear attack. What happens in those circumstances? Obviously the Americans would want to have a reduction in the Soviet military capability. Obviously the Americans want to see a move towards a balance of power and a reduction in the Soviet abilities otherwise there will be a genuine threat to the world 's balance of power. Closer to home, honourable members opposite never seem really to deal with what is occurring in our near neighbouring areas of interest. The Vietnamese and the Cambodians are still at loggerheads. The Vietnamese have been backed by the Russians and the Cambodians by the Chinese. One of the big mistakes that the Vietnamese and the Russians made was to send all Russian military supplies targeted for Asia to Vietnam in the last year before the Vietnamese offensive. They sent nothing to the Cambodians that year and during that period the Chinese sent supplies to the Cambodians while the Russians were arming the Vietnamese for the final offensive. The Chinese obtained an extra influence over and above that which they already had in Cambodia. At the moment the Vietnamese, who have been backed by the Russians, and the Cambodians, who have been formerly backed by the Chinese, are in the process of trying to disentangle themselves from their former masters. We do not know the degree of success that they are having. They are locked in a struggle between each other. But once one or other of them is successful in that struggle, what will happen next? We simply cannot predict that. But the Opposition members give us glib assurances of there being almost no threat, or have they abandoned that? We do not know. They keep saying that there is no real problem. What will happen to Thailand when the power struggle between the Vietnamese and the Cambodians is resolved? We do not know. Herman Kahn, the well known American forward predictor on international affairs, was asked recently about the future for Australia. He has an uncanny habit of being correct. He was happy to see that the 'no threat for 15 years' notion was discarded. He thought that it was difficult to write a scenario for Australia getting into trouble but he added: 'I bet you will'. That may be a very pessimistic scenario but if Herman Kahn is prepared to say that there are difficulties we must at least be prepared to stand on our own 2 feet and guard against what is occurring or what might occur. I want to mention one or two things about which Opposition members talked earlier. They raised the subject of Timor. It has been said time and again in this House and outside, and I have said it myself on a number of occasions, that the evidence is overwhelming that the Leader of the Opposition turned a blind eye to the Indonesians invading Timor. It is well known and documented that Indonesian troops were in East Timor long before December of last year. Then the most apparent part of the invasion- that is the naval and marine landing at Dili- was accomplished at or about the time of the last Australian election. Since that time this Government has said on many occasions that it certainly does not condone what has occurred in Indonesia. But let us not forget that it was the ego type attitude to international relations that contributed to what occurred. The grandstanding by the former Prime Minister and the coming to deals with the President of Indonesia enabled the situation in Timor to blow up. The position is that we must look to new horizons. We must have a new sensible, coherent approach to foreign policy. We must look at the matter rationally. These are new waters. These are uncharted areas. This country must be prepared to pull its full weight in conjunction with the Americans and not to shirk its own responsibilities, particularly in the area of the defence of Australia. 234 SH4 0 0 KLUGMAN, Dick Dr Klugman - Mr Deputy Speaker,is this an opportune time to adjourn the debate? Debate interrupted. 234 adjournment Medical Evidence in Compensation Cases- Wilcannia Aboriginal Building Society- Save the Children Fund- Income Tax -Department of Social Security- International Affairs- Unemployment Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the order of the House of 10 March 1977 I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 234 SH4 Prospect 0 0 KLUGMAN, Dick Dr KLUGMAN -Tonight I would like to raise an issue and because it is a touchy issue I would like to emphasise that I am raising it not on the basis of a sin of commission on the part of the Government but on the basis of a sin of omission. I am not criticising the Government for what it did in the particular case which I shall mention but I am criticising the different attitudes it has taken in a couple of other cases which I shall also mention. The first case I will mention is the recent death of Senator Greenwood. As the House knows, Senator Greenwood at the time of his massive stroke last May was Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development in the present Government. He suffered a massive stroke in May 1976 from which he never recovered. Recently his widow and family received an ex gratia payment of $25,000 on the basis of compensation. It was paid on the authority of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation who is under the control of the Public Service Board. The particular article from which I am quoting, in the Australian of 24 February, went on to say: A spokesman for the Treasurer, Mr Lynch, confirmed the payment was made. This is the important bit: He said that Mrs Greenwood's medical advisers backed up her claim that Senator Greenwood's fatal illness was attributable to the amount of work he did as a Minister and a senator. I am not questioning that. I would be quite hypocritical if I did because on numerous occasions I have taken a similar line with public servants and ex-servicemen who were trying to put the same case to the appropriate boards. The point I would like the House to look at- and especially the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Durack)- is the sort of evidence which is accepted by the appropriate boards and- just as importantly because the boards, I assume, are independent bodies- the sort of evidence put to the boards by employees of the Government. I shall cite a couple of cases. I shall not give the names of the persons involved; I do not think that would be fair because I have not checked with the relatives. The first case was of arterio-sclerosis similar to that of Senator Greenwood who, I understand, had severe hypertension before he had his cerebral haemorrhage. This person, too, suffered a stroke. Let me tell the House the evidence which was given to the board and accepted by it. The relevant part of the departmental medical opinion reads: Emotional as well as physical stress is capable of precipitating complications in individuals with established heart disease. Whether or not such stress plays a significant role in the development of atherosclerosis is at present unknown. There is no scientifically acceptable evidence to suggest that it does and much to suggest that it does not. As the final point as far as aetiology is concerned, that is, the origin of the factors which may have caused the ex-serviceman's condition, the Department put forward the following proposition: Robert S. Hockwald of the American Heart Association's Committee on Stress, Strain and Heart Disease wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association of 22 November 1 97 1 : It is the conclusion of almost all the experts in the field that the great majority of atherosclerotic complications (myocardial infarction, sudden death, stroke) are the result of progressive disease independent of employment or other activities. The Board accepted this. The second case involves an ex-serviceman who is still alive. According to this letter the Department submitted evidence which it called a 'consensus of current expert opinion'. This evidence was that Dr X denied any causal relationship between incapacity from the accepted disability 'anxiety state' and ischaemic heart disease and coronary occlusion, and any relevance to hypertension. So we can see that in those 2 cases government employees have given evidenceand I know of many more of course- clearly rejecting the proposition that it is possible to have any relationship between work and hypertension and strokes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!The honourable member's time has expired. 235 SH4 0 0 KLUGMAN, Dick Dr Klugman - If nobody else rises may I have another minute? I would just like to conclude. 235 10000 0 0 DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - I know that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) does desire to say something. I again call the honourable member for Prospect. 235 SH4 0 0 KLUGMAN, Dick Dr KLUGMAN - I would just like to wind up with the obvious point. I can see an inconsistency. I am not sure whether honourable members could follow the medical jargon but there is an inconsistency here, as I see it. It is not a clear cut case, obviously. It is impossible to tell whether a particular person's rise in blood pressure, arterial disease, or whatever, is clearly due to the work a person has done or his experiences in the Services. It is not a simple proposition. The only point I am arguing is that it should not be the job of the medical officers in the Department of Veterans' Affairs to put to a lay board the proposition that this is definitive evidence, that there is no evidence that it can be so, when in another case the proposition is accepted that the work, the emotional stress and the type of life that Senator Greenwood was forced to live because of his job, may have had some influence on his medical condition. I ask the Department to have a look at the type of evidence that has been presented by its medical officers because in many cases until such patients or their relatives come to somebody like myself with some medical knowledge and he has a look at the file, it is accepted that a doctor has said it is not possible and that is the end of the story. The odd ones that we see and on which we can appeal- often winning on the appeal- are the exceptions. They involve people who have enough drive to come to see their parliamentarians and if they are lucky enough to have somebody like me as their representative they receive attention. I am not trying to make this into a joke. It is a most important issue and I think it is vital for these people who ought to get a fair go. 235 EE6 Stirling LP Minister for Aboriginal Affairs 1 0 VINER, Ian Mr VINER -Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to enter this adjournment debate. I do so in relation to 2 matters that have been raised in previous adjournment debates. I might say that on neither of those occasions was I advised in advance that the subject matters were to be raised. Therefore it was not possible for me to answer immediately. The first matter was raised on 15 February by the honourable member for Darling (Mr FitzPatrick). Before I was in a position to reply, not being available the following week, the Parliament was prorogued. I take the opportunity now to comment briefly on some matters that the honourable member for Darling raised on that occasion. He spoke first about a visit to Wilcannia by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and me in September last year on the opening of the first house of the Barkandji Aboriginal Building Society in that town. The honourable member said that he was not invited to the party. He was, in fact, invited on my instructions. My office, through my regional office in Sydney, was in touch with the honourable member's office as soon as the arrangements were finally made for the visit. The advice that I received was that the honourable member would not be able to attend. He also raised the matter of the Save the Children Fund concerning 2 things in particularprovision of meals and, I believe, transport. He referred to a seminar which had been held in Sydney and attended by some 40 Aboriginal assistants of the Save the Children Fund in New South Wales and also by my regional director. I refer to this matter because I wish to put the position straight as far as my regional director is concerned and so far as the policies of this Government are concerned towards the Save the Children Fund. Let me say immediately that the Government has a high regard for the work that is being done by the Save the Children Fund. The measure of that regard can be judged from the fact that for 1976-77 some $319,000 has been allocated to that service. In respect of the 2 matters of transport and meals, I must say that I believe that my regional director has not been accurately reported or commented upon. He quite properly raised certain matters in the presence of the Aboriginal assistants in order to hear their response. He particularly raised them concerning the need for the highest level of Aboriginal involvement in these kinds of programs because it is of obvious advantage to any activity involving Aborigines that they should be involved at the highest level. I wrote to the President of the Save the Children Fund, His Honour Judge K. W. Grubb on 4 March. I elaborated on some of these matters and pointed out the context in which they had been raised by my Department. I am very happy to say that my officers and I are ready at any time to hold discussions with the Fund on the 2 matters of transport and meals as well as any other matters affecting the efficient provision of services to Aboriginal children through the preschool centres operated by the Save the Children Fund. The final matter on which I wish to speak very briefly was raised by the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Les McMahon) on 9 March with regard to the Tranby Co-operative College. I point out in the short time that is available that I wrote recently to the Reverend Clint, the General Secretary of the Co-operative which runs the College, inviting him to have discussions with my officers in Sydney. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!The honourable the Minister's time has expired. Because I allowed the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) additional time in which to speak, I suggest that the House extend the courtesy to the Minister of allowing him to finish his remarks. 236 EE6 0 0 VINER, Ian Mr VINER -I thank the House. I wrote to the Reverend Clint on 4 March inviting him to hold discussions with my regional director in North Sydney regarding the most urgent of his requirements and the possibility of a grant being made in the next financial year. With regard to the matter of Aboriginal study grants which was raised by the honourable member for Sydney, I will certainly be taking up that matter with my colleague, the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in view of the fact that courses will apparently be conducted during the remainder of this year. 236 5J4 Corio 0 0 SCHOLES, Gordon Mr SCHOLES -Very briefly, I want to raise 3 matters. The first concerns a regulation under the income tax laws. I think that it acts very discriminatingly against or to the disadvantage of some individuals. Recently it was drawn to my notice that a pensioner who was not liable to pay tax was charged income tax on receipts of pension for a period of approximately one month. An amount of about $100 to $150 tax was involved. He has been informed that under the income tax regulations he cannot obtain a rebate of the amount paid in tax, even though he has no liability to pay tax improperly levied against him, until the end of the financial year. Then he must submit a taxation return in order to have returned to him about $100 which he was improperly or inadvertently taxed by the Department of Social Security. That seems to be a hardship especially for a pensioner totally dependent upon that income. I raise that matter because it would seem to be one area in which something could be done to assist people who have no income and no prospects of income. 237 9F4 LP 0 0 CAMERON, Donald Milner Mr Donald Cameron - Is he an age pensioner? 237 5J4 0 0 SCHOLES, Gordon Mr SCHOLES - He is an age pensioner. 237 9F4 LP 0 0 CAMERON, Donald Milner Mr Donald Cameron - They have no right to do that without his permission. 237 5J4 0 0 SCHOLES, Gordon Mr SCHOLES -I am not worried whether there is a right to do this. I think that the Department of Social Security also has some liability in respect of some of the people who are receiving large tax bills in that it did not advise them that they should be paying tax last year. However, that is another matter. Pay as you earn tax is levied on people 's incomes. I want to raise one other similar matter which relates to taxation rights. Last year the Government changed the system of assisting families in respect of tax deductions by transferring the amount which was normally given in deductions for children to a fixed amount in family allowance as child endowment. This scheme meant, as has been claimed, that low income earners received a greater share of the total amount spent by the Government on assistance for children than was the case under the former tax deduction system which was inequitable in that the person with the highest income received the greatest rebate. A serious inequity has arisen and the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in correspondence to me has refused to correct it. It relates to a person who is maintaining children but who does not have child endowment rights. There are quite a number of people paying maintenance in our community who are in this situation. They must maintain the children by meeting the cost of their living expenses. Previously, they had the right to claim a tax concession for children, They do not have the right to collect any part of the child endowment. It is suggested that they might make arrangements with the mother or the person who is receiving the child endowment, but I would think that is a pie in the sky solution. Usually some strained relationship has occurred before that situation arrives. Certainly, the person paying the maintenance is severely disadvantaged by this change. These are people who I think ought to be taken into consideration when this type of scheme is initiated. I suggest that the Government might look at means by which these people can be maintained in their position. Even State governments have benefited by the change, because they have collected for people in institutions child endowment which is designated to them under the social service regulations. I want to raise briefly another matter which is fairly narrow in its context but which has a serious consequence. Recently, one of the members of my staff obtained permanency in the Commonwealth Public Service and was allocated to a position in the local branch of the Department of Social Security. I find that that allocation has deprived the Department of Social Security in my electorate of one staff position which it must hold open, even though the girl on my staff has never worked in that Department and has been designated to it only for convenience or because some government regulation provides that she must be designated to some department. I raise this because it disadvantages the Department and increases the workload on other persons in an area in which there is a fairly extensive workload. I ask whether that matter can be given some examination as I think it is unfair to the staff members in the Department. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!The honourable member's time has expired. 237 BV4 Denison 0 0 HODGMAN, Michael Mr HODGMAN -This evening in what can be described only as a very second rate speech on foreign affairs, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam)- 237 5J4 0 0 SCHOLES, Gordon Mr Scholes - I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member is not entitled to address the House on the subject matter of a debate which is before the House. 237 10000 0 0 DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock -I point out to the honourable member for Denison that he cannot revive a debate which has taken place in the House today. 237 BV4 0 0 HODGMAN, Michael Mr HODGMAN -Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition asserted that a number of back benchers on this side of the House and I had been vocal with respect to Czechoslovakia and the treatment of intellectuals there, particularly those concerned with the movement known as Charter 77, but that we had remained absolutely silent on the question of Uganda and South Korea. Such an assertion is completely untrue and, I submit with respect, reprehensible in the extreme. I merely draw it to the attention of the House that I am the only member of this chamber who on 2 occasions has placed a motion on the notice paper in respect of what has transpired in Czechoslovakia. I also draw it to the attention of the House that last Thursday, during the debate on the Address-in-Reply, I spent a considerable part of my speech and of the time allocated to me in dealing with the current situation in Uganda and in putting the point of view quite strongly- I believe supported by a large number of back benchers on this side of the House- that Uganda should be suspended from the British Commonwealth of Nations and that President Idi Amin in no circumstances should be permitted to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in London in 2 months time. I want to say with respect that honourable members on this side of the House are concerned about injustice and oppression wherever it occurs in the world, whether in the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere, whether behind the iron curtain, whether in Africa or in Asia. I take the strongest exception to the statements which suggest that honourable members on this side of the House would in some way be concerned only about incidents, for instance, in Czechoslovakia and not concerned with the situation in Uganda. I believe that that was a reprehensible and disgraceful attack upon the integrity of honourable members on this side of the House, and I particularly resent it. I suggest with respect that if the Leader of the Opposition cannot tell the truth he should not make speeches in this place at all. 238 HI4 Shortland 0 0 MORRIS, Peter Mr MORRIS - I must respond to the remarks made about the attitude expressed towards the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). If one was to reflect upon - 238 9F4 LP 0 0 CAMERON, Donald Milner Mr Donald Cameron - Are you voting for him? 238 HI4 0 0 MORRIS, Peter Mr MORRIS -I told the honourable member for Griffith a long time ago that people would pay money to see him and the honourable member for Denison in a zoo. He would be an embellishment to it. 238 10000 0 0 DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock -I think it would be far wiser if the honourable member for Shortland kept his remarks to the subject he wishes to raise during the adjournment debate. 238 HI4 0 0 MORRIS, Peter Mr MORRIS -Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are well aware that consistently it is the Government Whip or the Deputy Government Whip who seeks to interrupt and disrupt the proceedings of this House. A few weeks ago I promised, in response to an interjection from an honourable member on the Opposition side of the chamber, to read to the House the winning entries in the limerick competition conducted by the Newcastle Sun in response to the ghoulish limerick which the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) recited on national television about the people at the Newcastle State Dockyard whom he has deliberately put out of work. These are the three winning limericks. Mr Smith's limerick reads: Of his verse Mr Nixon is proud, but he has his head in a cloud. When he comes down to earth he will find there's no mirth in the unemployed State Dockyard crowd. Dr Threlfal's entry reads: A Cabinet member called Nixon just couldn't care less who he picks on. Poor unemployed blokes, are a subject for jokes but 1 11 bet Newcastle still kicks on. I support that one particularly. Mrs Buxton's entry reads: So they're building our ships in Japan, now make sense of that if you can. It puts men out of work, but Nix gives a smirk, So maybe it's part of the plan. The Newcastle Sun published also a couple of other entries which are concerned with the Minister for Transport and also the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). One of those which was printed in Jack Farrell 's column which appeared in the Newcastle Sun on 23 February reads: Said the farmer from A.C.T. 'Sink Newcastle prosperity 'While the bounty stays great 'On the superphosphate ' Let 's take what we can for free '. I think that confirms the consistent remarks made in this place and outside particularly that the people in the shipbuilding industry find it very difficult to understand the priorities of a government that awards a benefit to members of the Cabinet and then at the same time puts people out of work and laughs at their being out of work. The next limerick in the absence of anything more lyrical would get an award. It reads: There was a PM called Fraser Who wanted to be a hell raiser Praise be to the Lord If we are all in accord To use an eraser on Fraser. Even the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) is amused by that one. This is near to his own heart. He is one of the numbers men on the other side. He is also one of those people, along with other Government supporters, who are supporting this policy of deliberately putting Australians out of work. As I said last week in this chamber, the Government wants to see an expansion of the number of unemployed in the tragic belief that if enough people are out of work and enough people are waiting outside the gate the Government can force a reduction in real wages. I am at a loss to understand what kind of concern and compassion members of the Government parties have for Australians. The Government has achieved a record in the number of unemployed in any February since the depression years. It has achieved a record deficit. The deficit is now running at a rate $1 billion higher than 1975. The deficit in 1975 was supposedly a cause for great national concern. The deficit is now $1 billion higher, but according to Government supporters that is something of which to be proud. Daily we hear the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) regaling the House that this is really an achievement, an improvement. The other factor is in relation to devaluation- the greatest devaluation ever in the history of this country. They are the 3 records that those opposite support. I again appeal to them to have some compassion, thought and concern for the family men who are being thrown out of work as a result of their dangerous policies. 239 LE4 Macarthur 0 0 BAUME, Michael Mr BAUME -The long playing record that we have just heard over and over again from the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Morris) is one that is not only dull but one that is also slightly cracked. The facts, of course, do not support the honourable member's proposition at all. What he fails to recognise is that there was a trebling in unemployment under the dynamic forward looking policies that threw hundreds of thousands of people out of work while the Government of which he was an insignificant supporter was in power. Since that Government has changed a minute increase has occurred in the numbers of people unemployed. 239 QK5 0 0 GROOM, Ray Mr Groom -They put 192 000 people out of work. 239 LE4 0 0 BAUME, Michael Mr BAUME - As the honourable member for Braddon says, the Labor Party put 192 000 people out of work. We have halted those policies. Unfortunately the consequences are still with us. Unfortunately a slight increase has occurred in the number of unemployed but we have not put 192 000 people out of work, the way the Labor Party did. We are proud of our record in halting the disgraceful rise in the number of unemployed that emerged from the deliberate and determined policies of the Labor Government. The Labor Party is continuing with these policies and endeavouring to put more and more people out of work. The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited 's publication Business Indicators for March which has just come to my desk very clearly and sensibly demonstrates what an important role the Labor Party could play if it wished in improving the economic climate and therefore putting people back into work. The Labor Opposition is following the same lead as the Labor Government. It is determined not to do anything to help the unemployed. It is determined to maintain the situation which forces people out of jobs. I would Uke to quote from the ANZ publication which shows what the Labor Party could be doing for Australia. The document reads: It is even more essential that those who make public opinion- business and Labor leaders and the media which interpret them- should cease aggravating the gloom, and acknowledge the economic progress which is being made (even though some may consider that the chosen official policies are imperfect) and refrain from asking governments to deliver what is beyond their power to deliver. The Labor Opposition and various sections of the Labor movement are deliberately exacerbating unemployment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!It being 1 1 p.m. the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.15 p.m. 239 23:00:00 House adjourned at 11 p.m. 240 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated: 240 240 JUS 0 0 MCVEIGH, Tom Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977: 1 ) Is duty payable on (a) imported palm and coconut oil and ( b ) raw materials from which such oils can be processed. If so, are there any exemptions, and what is the basis for granting the exemptions. 240 ZD4 LP 1 0 HOWARD, John Mr Howard - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1 ) There is no Customs duty payable. Seed). 240 240 SH4 0 0 KLUGMAN, Dick Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977: 1 ) When was a joint Commonwealth-State committee set up to advise on consumer product standards. Who are its members. How often has it met. What will be the legal standing of any standards decided on. 240 ZD4 LP 1 0 HOWARD, John Mr Howard - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1 ) The Commonwealth-State Consumer Products Advisory Committee was established in January 1 977. It comprises the Assistant Secretary, Consumer Products Branch, Department of Business and Consumer Affairs as Chairman and representing the Commonwealth and one member representing the Consumer Affairs Authority in each State. The Standards Association of Australia is represented on the Committee in a consultative capacity. The Committee has met once on 3 February 1977. Proposals for consumer product standards are recommended by the Committee. If accepted by the Government they are promulgated as regulations under Section 62 or 63 of the Trade Practices Act. 240 240 CV4 0 0 JACOBI, Ralph Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977: 1 ) Does the Government propose to introduce legislation during the Autumn sittings to amend the Bankruptcy Act to assist consumers in debt in accordance with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald oil January 1977. Does the Government propose any other legislation to amend the Bankruptcy Act; if so, when will it be introduced. Does the Government propose to introduce legislation to assist consumers in debt by regulating consumer credit transactions at a national level along the lines of the Canadian Borrowers and Depositors Protection Bill introduced into the Canadian Parliament on 27 October 1976. 240 ZD4 LP 1 0 HOWARD, John Mr Howard - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1 ) The Law Reform Commission has not yet made its report on the question of 'consumers in debt' referred to it by my colleague the Attorney-General. When the report is made it will be given full consideration in relation to any recommendations for the amendment of the Bankruptcy Act. The Government is considering a number of proposals for the amendment of the Bankruptcy Act but it has not yet made any decision on these proposals. The whole question of uniform consumer credit laws is currently under consideration by the Commonwealth/State Credit Laws Committee, working under the aegis of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. That Committee is largely basing its work upon the Report of the Molomby Committee which inquired into fair consumer credit laws. 240 240 6U4 ALP 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr E G Whitlam am asked the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1977: Did the Industries Assistance Commission in its 1974-75 report dated 29 September 1975 suggest that a reference be sent to it on the general question of assistance to encourage research and development and the dissemination and application of research results. Did the Commission in its 1975-76 report dated 17 September 1976 observe that, as the recently modified Industrial Research and Development Incentives Scheme is due to expire in 1981, it would be appropriate for the reference to be forwarded in time for an inquiry to be completed before then. 3 ) On what occasions, and with what result, has consideration been given to making the reference which the Commission has twice sought. 240 ZD4 LP 1 0 HOWARD, John Mr Howard - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. Yes. The question of a reference to the IAC on research and development is initially a matter for the Minister for Productivity who currently has the question of such a reference under examination.